Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HULL TIDAL SURGE BARRIER BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Read the Third time, and passed.

ULLAPOOL PIER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

CROMARTY FIRTH PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Low-flying Aircraft

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of State for Defence what precautions he is taking to protect people and property from the new Jaguar low-flying aircraft over Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): All low flying is governed by stringent regulations designed to ensure the safety of everyone concerned and to minimise disturbance to those on

the ground. The Jaguar will be subject to these regulations when flown at low level.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that his news is welcome, because nothing is more frightening to the population or more terrifying to those of a nervous disposition than the racing of jet aircraft from rooftop to rooftop? Will he assure the House that account will be taken of the effect on such individuals and even of the effect on sensitive property in the precautions which are being drawn up?

Mr. Kershaw: All low flying is subject to strict regulations, and it is not true to say that it is at roof-top height.

Mr. Dempsey: I have seen it.

Mr. Kershaw: The Jaguar, which will be subject to the regulations, is not expected to be as noisy or uncomfortable to people on the ground as were previous aircraft. I can assure the hon. Member that it is not proposed to fly over Coat-bridge and Airdrie.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that if the arrangements in Coatbridge and Airdrie are carried out as well as they are at Middle Wallop aviation centre in my constituency they will lack very little?

Mr. Kershaw: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his comment. The arrangements certainly will be carried out well.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Low-level flights in Wales now number more than 1,000 a month and there is grave disquiet at the increasing scale of these flights, which are injurious to the community and imperil human life. Is the Minister willing to pay attention to the prospect of greatly reducing the scale of these exercises before the problem gets much worse?

Mr. Kershaw: I am sorry, but I cannot oblige the hon. Member. It is necessary to carry out these low-level flights. They are no more numerous over Wales than over other parts of the country where they have to be carried out. I understand the inconvenience and I regret it, but it is necessary for the training of the Royal Air Force that such flights should be conducted.

Mr. John: We accept the necessity for the Royal Air Force to be trained in contour flying, but is there not evidence of more complaints from the western half of Britain than from other parts about these low-level flights? Would it not be prudent for the Minister to re-examine the position to ensure that no unnecessary disruption takes place?

Mr. Kershaw: Certainly it is essential that no more disruption than is necessary takes place. Wales does not have more than its proportion of low-level flights, but I agree with the hon. Member that we get more complaints from Wales than from other parts of the country.

Protective Clothing (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Terry Davis: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the protective clothing issued to soldiers who are serving in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): I am satisfied that the protective clothing provided for our troops in Northern Ireland is the most suitable currently available.

Mr. Davis: Has the Minister seen recent Press reports about the new bulletproof jacket which is being issued to members of the Ulster Constabulary, the Belfast Harbour Police, airport security men and prison officers? Why is he refusing to provide the same protection for British soldiers?

Mr. Blaker: I have seen such reports, which, to put it mildly, have given only an imperfect picture. The reason for the jackets referred to in the reports not having been acquired for the Army is that they are heavier than the fragmentation vest. They leave 30 per cent. more of the trunk area exposed and they do not stop the main terrorist weapon used against the Army—namely, the high velocity bullet. In any case, they would usually have to be worn in addition to the fragmentation vest, which would impose a heavy weight burden.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern about the number of head wounds being suffered by our troops and that there is some surprise that our troops do not

appear to wear steel helmets when going on patrol?

Mr. Blaker: This is a matter which must be left to the discretion of local commanders. The value of any item of protective clothing depends on the type of dangers faced at the time. The steel helmet appears to give good protection against bombs and rioters' missiles. However, steel helmets cannot stop a high velocity bullet. Further, they can seriously affect a soldier's concentration and mobility and, just as important, limit his field of vision.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the troops have been assassinated by bullets which penetrated the neck? Is he aware that there is protective clothing for men in dangerous positions which can cover the neck? Will he consider having this clothing provided for the troops in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Blaker: I am not aware of any clothing which will stop a high velocity bullet hitting the neck. If the hon. Gentleman has information about such clothing, I shall be glad to have it. If any hon. Member would care to visit the research establishment which looks into all equipment of this sort, I should be glad to make arrangements.

Jaguar Aircraft

Mr. Dykes: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Jaguar aircraft for operational use.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): The Jaguar development and production programme is proceeding satisfactorily.
The Royal Air Force recently took delivery of its first aircraft and plans to form its first squadron during the current financial year.

Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend pleased with the aeroplane? Does it come up to expectations in its preliminary operations? For how many years does he think it will be a successful addition to the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Gilmour: We are certainly pleased with it. More important, the RAF is pleased with it. It more than meets our


expectations. I should not like to give an exact estimate of the number of years it will be in service.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the satisfactory introduction into service of the Jaguar with the Royal Air Force, the important thing now is to get a major export order for the aircraft? Will he do everything within his power to ensure the sale of the aircraft to one of our traditional export markets for British military equipment?

Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a good deal of interest in foreign countries about the aircraft. I am confident that we shall make some sales.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the operations of the security forces in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Army is continuing to assist the civil authorities in the maintenance of law and order. It is continuing to make progress against the terrorists, and I am sure the whole House shares our gratitude for the efforts it and other members of the security forces have made to enable last week's elections to take place almost undisturbed by violence.

Mr. Duffy: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the slump in Army recruitment figures for April compared with a year ago? Will he say how far that is due to the operations in Northern Ireland, the campaign being conducted in this country for the withdrawal of the troops, or the economic boom? Will he undertake some market research to establish the facts?

Mr. Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, there are two later Questions which specifically relate to Army

recruitment. Northern Ireland is one factor, but it is only one factor.

Mr. Goodhart: Can my right hon. Friend say what success we are having with our policy of strengthening the Ulster Defence Regiment and the RUC? Will he say what reply we have had to the questions which have been put to the Soviet Government and elsewhere about the supply of Russian-manufactured rockets to the IRA?

Mr. Gilmour: The RUC is not my responsibility except in so far as the RMP works with it. I can tell my hon. Friend that co-operation is going very well and that the RMP is popular in the area in which it operates. I have no further information to give him on the second part of his question.

Mr. Stratton Mills: My right hon. Friend talks about progress being made against the terrorists: in his assessment of the situation, can lie point to areas where there have been major breakthroughs in the last couple of months? Can he give the House all the information that is available about the flow of information and the finds of arms, ammunition and explosives?

Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, the flow of information since last year has on the whole been very good and has continued to be so over the last two months. I can tell him that, since the beginning of the year, 775 people have been arrested and charged with offences of a security nature. Arms finds have included over 700 firearms, over 81,000 rounds of ammunition and over 16 tons of explosives.

Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many people have been convicted by Northern Ireland juries of murdering our troops, and how many people who are known to have murdered our troops are not being arrested because it is not even worth putting them on trial?

Mr. Gilmour: It is difficult to answer the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question without the exact figures. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the great many people who have been put behind bars under interim custody orders and so forth who are probably murderers but who have not


always been brought to trial for reasons of which the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the operations of the troops in Northern Ireland depends to a great degree on the morale of the troops? Will he confirm that the morale of the troops suffered when they read the headlines on the front page of the Daily Mirror of 11th June about the life-saver which our troops cannot wear? That was a reference to the jackets referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis). Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent upon the British Press to use facts and not to deal in innuendos and emotions?

Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that the morale of our troops in Northern Ireland is extremely good. Morale remains very high and it would not be affected in any way by an article of that sort. I am sure that the Press is fully aware of the need to use care when printing articles about Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wellbeloved: In view of the interest taken by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland about the continuing presence of British troops in Northern Ireland, will the Minister say what talks he will try to open with the Republican Government to try to ensure that murderers harbouring in the Republic no longer cross the border to murder British troops in Northern Ireland? Does he think that he will receive the cooperation of the Republic in suppressing such activities?

Mr. Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, co-operation on the border has improved over the last few months. There is still room for greater scope. The border is very long, and that affects the South just as much as ourselves.

Libyan Warships

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of State for Defence what obligations were assumed by the Royal Navy in relation to training a Libyan crew at Portland, following the sale of a warship to Libya; whether he is satisfied that Libyan crews are treating Portland instructing

staff with courtesy; if he is satisfied that each side is fulfilling those obligations: and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): The Royal Navy is providing facilities on repayment to help in the training of the Libyan naval crew. Such facilities are provided for many countries which purchase warships in the United Kingdom. As I said on 13th June, we have investigated reports of difficulties between the Libyans and the Royal Navy instructors and have discovered no foundation for them.—[Vol. 857, c. 334.]

Mr. King: In the light of conflicting reports, may I thank my hon. Friend for the reassurance which he gave in the latter part of his answer? Is it not a fact that for 15 years highly-trained naval personnel at Portland have trained foreign navies to which we have sold warships? Have they not made an immense and valuable contribution to the export trade, and should we not pay tribute to them?

Mr. Buck: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I endorse what he has said relating to the work which is done by the Flag Officer, Sea Training, and those employed with him.

Mr. Judd: In view of Colonel Gadaffi's extreme statements from time to time, not least his declared support for the IRA, will the hon. Gentleman accept that there are problems and difficulties in the relationship which need to be watched carefully? Will he undertake that he will keep the whole situation under the closest possible scrutiny?

Mr. Buck: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Similarly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs keeps the whole matter under close scrutiny.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of State for Defence why warships are being built in the United Kingdom for Libya.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: No warships for Libya are currently under construction in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that mean that no warships are in future to be built for Libya bearing in mind that Colonel


Gadaffi is aggressive in at least two directions, as witness his support of the IRA? May we understand that such warships as have been built for Libya are not likely to upset the Arab/Israeli balance and make a new conflict more likely?

Mr. Gilmour: The warship to which my hon. Friend refers was ordered in 1967 and agreed to by the then Government, no doubt for good reasons. I have no reason to believe that it will upset the balance of power. I cannot answer a hypothetical question about future orders. We have taken steps to ensure that no military equipment which could conceivably be of use to the IRA is shipped to Libya, but it is not judged that a frigate comes into that category.

Aircraft Accident (Caradon Hill)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he has received the report of the board of inquiry following the accident involving a low-flying aircraft at Caradon Hill, Liskeard, on 27th March 1973; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kershaw: Yes, Sir. The board of inquiry found that the main cause of the accident at Caradon Hill on 27th March 1973 was the pilot's failure to maintain the separation from cloud required by regulations, at a time when he had also formed a mistaken impression of his position. Suggestions were made for the improvement of certain minor details of flight planning procedures and these are being followed up.

Mr. Hicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Now that he has received the report, will he undertake to look very carefully indeed at the possibility of prohibiting aircraft from low flying in the immediate vicinity of Caradon Hill because of the physical obstacle involved?

Mr. Kershaw: As I have said, the pilot was off course. Normally there should not be any danger from Caradon Hill because a pilot would not pass close enough to it. I do not think that alteration in the flight path of low-flying aircraft is necessary in that area.

Service Pay

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the

percentage increase in Service pay in Her Majesty's Government's estimates; and how it compares with the percentage increase in other defence expenditure 1971 to 1974.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Expenditure on the pay and allowances of United Kingdom regular Service men provided for in defence estimates 1973–74, plus the recently announced pay award, is about 53 per cent. higher than the figure in defence estimates in 1970–71 after some allowance is made for the introduction of the military salary in that year. During the same period, other defence expenditure is estimated to increase by 49 per cent.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the figures? If one makes a comparison between 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 one finds that the figures he has given are reversed and that a vast degree of expenditure in that time has been on weapons rather than pay. If this should prove to be the case, will the right hon. Gentleman cease sheltering behind increases in pay when the totality of the Government's defence expenditure is questioned?

Mr. Gilmour: The exact proportions vary from year to year. according to what pay increases there are and also to the percentage of the large weapons expenditure. The proportions cannot be exact year after year. The figures I have given are correct for the years requested by the hon. Gentleman. If one takes a slightly different base line, one will get a slightly different answer.

Mr. William Hamilton: What compensatory payments are being made to our troops in Germany following revaluation of the mark?

Mr. Gilmour: There is a Question about that later on the Order Paper.

Army Recruiting

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the decrease in the Army recruiting figures for April 1973 as compared with April 1971 and April 1972.

Mr. Blaker: Although the decrease was exaggerated as a result of the intervention of the Easter holiday this year, there


was a downward trend in recruiting in April 1973 compared to April 1972, as there was between April 1972 and April 1971. The statement on the defence estimates made it clear that there would be difficulties in recruiting this year. We are watching the situation closely but it is too early to say how the current year's performance is likely to compare with the forecast.

Mr. Mitchell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the April 1973 figures are very much down on those of April 1972? Does he not regard this as serious? Does he think that there will be any improvement in recruiting until the British Army is disengaged from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Blaker: I agree that the April 1973 figures are significantly down on last year but I have already explained one of the factors. Our researches show that Northern Ireland is or may be now one of the factors affecting recruitment, but we believe that it is one of the least important ones. The Army's presence in Northern Ireland is still vital. It has been achieving very considerable successes against the terrorists and it is necessary for it to remain there until the violence has subsided and peace has been restored.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Accepting that this recruitment will not be any easier in the next year, as unemployment goes down, may I ask whether the Ministry and the Armed Services have looked at the possibility of increased use of civilians, particularly in Northern Ireland, so that the forces can concentrate more on the military task and the civilians can take over subsidiary duties?

Mr. Blaker: I take the point. We have done a great deal of civilianisation. We are always prepared to see whether there is scope for more, but I doubt whether there is a great deal of scope left in this direction.

Mr. Judd: These figures are really disturbing and there are grounds for deep concern. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make a full statement on the situation to the House before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman, with all his experience in these matters,

would not be justified in reading drastic implications into the figures for one month. A statement is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Does not my lion. Friend agree that the raising of the school leaving age and the fact that we are not allowed now to take junior soldiers at that age is also having its effect on recruiting?

Mr. Blaker: It is a factor which inevitably will have its effect on recruiting. It was, of course, considered and the decision was taken of which my hon. and gallant Friend is aware. However, we have recently introduced a scheme under which boys still at school are guaranteed vacancies in our junior training organisation when they leave at the age of 16 or over, and so far the response is encouraging.

Icelandic Fisheries

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the effectiveness of Royal Navy personnel serving on fishery protection duties off Iceland.

Mr. Buck: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Reed: Is my hon. Friend aware that we all have the highest regard for the way in which the Royal Navy is performing its duties? Will he confirm that the principal task of the Royal Navy remains keeping tabs on the Soviet fleet and not getting entangled in fishermen's nets? Does he not agree that if, as a result of this dispute, Iceland is lost to NATO, that task will be made infinitely more difficult?

Mr. Buck: I have just returned from a NATO meeting and I am aware of the importance of the Keflavik base, which is a separate issue. I remind my hon. Friend that NATO is also devoted to the cause of the maintenance of the rule of law, and we shall give the highest priority to the protection of our fishermen.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the deep-sea fishermen of Bolton may think about the Royal Navy, Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and elsewhere think that it is doing a magnificent job, which is confirmed by


its record since it was sent in? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is happening in our contacts with the West German Navy? Is any contingency planning going ahead for the future, since both our fishing fleets are involved, as was demonstrated the other day?

Mr. Buck: The House will be aware of the incident yesterday in which a German trawler was involved, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary may well be talking to the German authorities on this matter in Helsinki today. One of our ships was tracking one of the Icelandic gunboats, which is the most effective way in which we can provide protection so that fishermen—as the hon. Gentleman knows perhaps better than anyone else—can go on, and go on at a high level.

Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Royal Navy on its protection, which is illustrated by the fact that very few warps have been cut since it went in? Does he not agree that any comparisons with the last cod war are totally erroneous? Are not our fishermen confident that they can catch up to the 170,000 tons of fish awarded by the International Court under naval protection?

Mr. Buck: I am obliged to my hon. Friend and I endorse everything he has said. What he said about the catches being made by our trawlers is confirmed from both sides of the House.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that naval personnel from Liverpool would prefer not to be involved in any conflict with the Icelanders? Will he now look at the position in relation to West Germany? There are no German warships off Iceland and the West German Chancellor is about to visit Iceland to try to reach a settlement. Will the hon. Gentleman draw this fact to the attention of the Prime Minister? Might it not be wise for the Prime Minister to follow that example?

Mr. Buck: The hon. Gentleman says that sailors from Liverpool would prefer not to be involved. We would all prefer not to be involved, because we would like to see the matter dealt with through the courts of law. I remind the hon. Gentle-

man that yesterday's incident off Iceland involved a German trawler.

Gibraltar

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will strengthen the air defence system of Gibraltar.

Mr. Kershaw: No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Do the Government assess the air defence needs of Gibraltar on the basis that the current disgraceful blockade is likely to continue, or that it is likely to come to an end in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Kershaw: We take the view that the air defence arrangements we have for Gibraltar are satisfactory.

Greece (NATO Exercise)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the presence of British armed forces in Greece on NATO exercises.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: British forces recently took part in the NATO exercise "Alexander Express" which involved the deployment of the multi-national ACE mobile force to Northern Greece. Her Majesty's Government regard the participation of British forces in such exercises as an important means of contributing to the continued military effectiveness of the Alliance.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Minister confirm that not only is NATO supposed to be about the maintenance of the rule of law but it is also supposed to be about the maintenance of liberty and democracy? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Greek NATO Army toppled democracy and still holds the country under dictatorship and repression. May we have a promise that something will be done inside NATO to try to restore democracy and that there will not be another idiotic decision to send British troops to Greece at the same time as the Greek Navy is trying to get rid of the dictatorship?

Mr. Gilmour: Greece occupies a position of great strategic importance on the southern flank of the Alliance. To call in question or to undermine Greece's position in NATO would jeopardise the


security of the Alliance without bringing any benefit to the Greek people. I certainly will not give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. I think that his memory is a bit short. We are taking exactly the attitude that the Labour Government took. In 1969 there was a similar exercise with Greece—"Olympic Express"—in which British forces took part.

Mr. Dykes: While I accept the complete legitimacy of such military exercises for defence purposes, I should like the Government to make clearer that they have a continuing disapproval of the nature and future of the present Greek regime.

Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend will realise that this is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He will also be aware that the Government—as did the previous Government—conduct normal trade, defence and other relations with a number of Governments whose internal policies we do not necessarily endorse.

Mr. John: Does not the Minister realise that, however narrow a strategic view he takes, an anti-democratic regime in Greece is possibly the most unstable sort of regime we want on our southern flank of NATO? Is it not high time that Britain exercised her influence through NATO to emphasise what we stand for as well as what we stand against?

Mr. Gilmour: The Government have done that very often, and no one is in any doubt what we stand for. But we do not think it appropriate for the internal affairs of particular countries to be discussed in NATO.

North Sea Oil Exploration(Health Hazards)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of State for Defence what discussions he has had with commercial interests engaged on the exploitation of North Sea oil on coordination with the Institute of Naval Medicine at Alverstoke.

Mr. Buck: None, Sir. But there is already considerable contact between members of the Institute of Naval Medicine and these interests.

Mr. Dalyell: As the accident rate in the North Sea is 55 times the national industrial average and 10 times the yearly average in the coal mines, is there not an argument for using Alverstoke for research on all sorts of problems, including diving below 400 ft. and rescue from cold water? The figures are alarming.

Mr. Buck: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling those figures to my attention—I had not seen them. He will know that there is good co-operation with this establishment and the one next door. If we can do anything to strengthen the ties which there should be between industry and those who operate in the North Sea, we will do so.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister look at the association between the Alverstoke institute, the Naval Research Establishment at Dunfermline and the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride with a view to designing equipment suitable for operations in the North Sea, particularly at considerable depth?

Mr. Buck: I will gladly look into those matters. I know that the superintendent at Alverstoke has close contacts with the organisations mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Portsmouth (Service Establishments)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make arrangements to pay an official visit to Service establishments in Portsmouth.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have no plans, at present, for such a visit.

Mr. Judd: The Minister will be very welcome if he comes to the city. If he does, will he give priority to comparing the amount of land still occupied by the Services on Portsea Island with the desperate shortage of land for urgent social priorities for the people of the island? Will he particularly look at the firing range of Tipner and the need to utilise it for a strategic lorry park if there must be one on Portsea Island? Will he also look at the heart of Portsea and the need to move the dockyard wall to give the neighbouring flats some breathing space? More widely, in the country as a whole, will he give more encouragement to the Services to share their recreational, social, sporting and other amenities with neighbouring communities?

Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his prospective welcome. He will not expect me to give a detailed answer to each of the land questions he has raised, but I will look into them and write to him. In general, the Services do what they can to cooperate in recreational and other matters with the civilian population. I will see whether anything more can be done.

Land Requirements (Scotland)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's present and future requirements for land for training and other purposes in Scotland.

Mr. Blaker: No, Sir. I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the report of the Defence Lands Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Nugent of Guildford.

Mr. Douglas: Is the Minister aware of the grievances in certain areas of Scotland about the amount of land consumed by military and naval establishments? In view of the land hunger for housing and industrial purposes, when the report comes will the Minister undertake to give a speedy decision?

Mr. Blaker: I undertake that the report will be considered with all appropriate speed. The hon. Gentleman asks about the use of land in Scotland for Ministry of Defence purposes. It was to examine the needs of the Ministry of Defence for land for training and related purposes throughout the United Kingdom that the committee was set up. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the size of defence land holdings as a proportion of the total land area as at 1st October last was as follows in the four countries of the United Kingdom: England 1·6 per cent., Wales 0·9 per cent., Scotland 0·3 per cent. and Northern Ireland 0·75 per cent.

Mr. William Clark: As the Nugent Report has been in the Government's hands for some time, will my hon. Friend say when he will publish it?

Mr. Blaker: On Thursday 5th July, Sir.

RAF Fatalities (Dependants' Compensation)

Sir Robin Turton: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the policy of his Department for informing dependants of persons killed in RAF crashes of the responsibility of his Department to compensate them for the loss they have suffered.

Mr. Kershaw: When members of the public are killed or injured in RAF crashes the Department's policy follows normal legal and commercial practice. We do not specifically invite claims against the Department but, of course, we consider sympathetically claims which are submitted.

Sir Robin Turton: Will my hon. Friend consider reviewing this policy? Is he aware that on 7th May a Jet Provost aircraft crashed into a field in my constituency killing two men who were working on a tractor only 400 yards from their homes, yet six weeks later nothing had been done to give any compensation to their widows although steps had been taken to compensate the farmer for his tractor? Is that not absolutely shameful?

Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. Friend is right to call attention to this particularly tragic case. I will examine carefully whether a suitable form of words can be devised to apprise members of the public of their common law rights when accidents happen. My right hon. Friend will know that the senior air staff officer of headquarters 23 Group visited the families on the day of the crash and personally told them that they could submit claims. This they have now all done.

Mr. John: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that, since the Services have to exist with the public and need their good will, urgent action by his Department on humanitarian lines would help to ease the extra administrative burden which he seems to think is insuperable?

Mr. Kershaw: No, Sir, I did not say that it was insuperable. I said that we were examining the situation. It must be borne in mind that there are 15,000 accident claims a year, and in view of that


total number it will be appreciated that it would be quite a job to notify all the people concerned.

Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what decision he has reached about ordering the naval version of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier VSTOL aircraft.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Minister of State for Defence when he expects to announce the results of the project definition study of the Harrier aircraft in the maritime rôle.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now announce the outcome of the project definition studies on a naval variant of the Harrier; and what decision he has consequently made about the provision of vertical-short take-off and landing aircraft for the Royal Navy's projected through-deck cruisers.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the future employment of VSTOL aircraft in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Evaluation of the outcome of the project definition study is proceeding. I have nothing to add to my previous replies.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the project studies seem to be taking a very long time? Will he confirm that we shall have a decision on this matter before the House goes into recess?

Mr. Gilmour: The project study itself is completed, but our evaluation of it is not yet completed. As I have already said, we hope to make an announcement before the end of the Session.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if a maritime rôle for the Harrier aircraft is accepted it is likely to lead to substantial and valuable export orders, as well as at least providing some means of protection for merchant shipping and naval units beyond the range of shore-based aircraft?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that the implications of a favourable decision are

likely to be reflected in exports. This is something we take into account.

Mr. Judd: Will not the Minister accept that this prevarication is unfair to men in the Fleet Air Arm? In one way or another a clear decision is needed. Will he give a decision as soon as possible?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not accept that there has been prevarication. I accept that there has been delay, and I hope that it will be remedied as soon as possible.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend undertake not to be persuaded not to order the naval Harrier by any argument put forward by the Air Staff, because the understanding in journalistic circles is that project definition studies have gone extremely well and that the best export opportunities for the Harrier lie with the naval variant?

Mr. Gilmour: Without accepting the implication of my hon. Friend's question, I do not think I can give the undertaking for which he asked.

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that this project has been under consideration for five or six years? Will he undertake to make a statement before the long recess? At the same time will he say what Services will fly the aircraft provided that they are approved?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that this matter has been under consideration for a long time, and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has been remarkably consistent on this topic. I have already said that we hope to announce our decision before the end of the Session.

CR Gas

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the effects and possible use of CR gas.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The chemical agent CR is an irritant which causes short-lived sensations of acute pain to the skin and eyes, but there is no evidence of damage to affected tissues. No decision has yet been taken to use it for riot control.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that this new and


horrifying gas will not be used in Northern Ireland, where it would further worsen relations? Secondly, if the gas is not to be used anywhere, why produce it?

Mr. Gilmour: I will not give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asked, nor would I describe this gas as horrifying. We have not taken any decision to employ it in riot control, but it may be that a gas of this sort might save lives and help to reduce the level of violence in Northern Ireland. I am sure that is something that the hon. Gentleman would welcome.

Interrogation Techniques

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Minister of State for Defence what use is now made of interrogation techniques in the training of personnel.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: These techniques are used in training certain categories of Service men in resistance to interrogation.

Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean about this? Is he saying that the volunteer interrogators are expected to use these techniques on our own side in the course of manoeuvres but are not expected to use them on real interrogees in the course of actual interrogation?

Mr. Gilmour: As the hon and learned Gentleman knows, there are a number of countries which do not subscribe to the Geneva convention. It is important that some of our troops who may be exposed to capture after hostilities should be trained to withstand these techniques.

Housing (Ex-Service Men)

Mr. John: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's arrangements for the provision of housing for ex-Service men after the completion of their service.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We already do a good deal to help Service men leaving the Services and facing the problem of finding housing, for example by operating various schemes designed to assist them to buy their own houses. We are actively considering what else might be done under the constraints of the defence budget.

Mr. John: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a considerable amount of anxiety is being caused to ex-Service men who are completing their service? Does he not agree that everything that can be done should be done to see that these men who have served in the armed forces are assured of having all their housing needs considered at the end of their service?

Mr. Gilmour: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a good deal of anxiety about this important matter. There are other equally important welfare matters with which we have to deal. It is a matter of weighing one priority against another. We are looking into the matter very carefully indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with the CBI about inflation on Monday 18th June.

Mr. Joel Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meetings with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As I have already told the House, specific subjects for further discussion were agreed at my meetings with the CBI on 18th June and with the TUC on 13th June. These will be discussed at further meetings with the two bodies, the dates of which are being arranged.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the CBI's view that, if we are to maintain the present growth rate under phase 3, there will not be much scope for a real increase in wages? If this is not the position as my right hon. Friend sees it, will he take active steps to counter the pessimistic propaganda which is being put out at the moment about workers, business and, indeed, the nation's prosperity under phase 3?

The Prime Minister: With my hon. Friend, I regret that that attitude has been taken by some people about the prospects of continuing growth and continuing employment and I do not think


that it is justified. With regard to forecasts, whether by the CBI or anybody else, what I said to the CBI and TUC on the last occasion was that, having agreed the objectives for our talks, we would do the same as we did last year—which is, in the autumn, to put forward the best economic model we can as to what will happen to growth in the economy, employment, investment and all the other factors. These would be discussed between the three parties, if they so wished, first at official level and then between the delegations. In the meantime, I have offered to give the CBI and TUC, in the work they are doing on the subjects upon which we settled, any information we have available, if they will indicate what they require.

Mr. Barnett: Can the Prime Minister explain how he reconciles the statement that he is negotiating in good faith with the TUC with the fact that the TUC's commitments are incompatible with Conservative philosophy?

The Prime Minister: It is a strange accusation for the hon. Gentleman to make. He and most of his right hon. and hon. Friends have always urged that we should be prepared to discuss anything with the TUC, and the TUC is taking advantage of this. This is valuable—in exactly the same way as we are prepared to discuss any item with the CBI, which also may have a different philosophy.

Mr. Ridley: As the rate of inflation has increased since the counter-inflation policy was started, will my right hon. Friend have careful regard to economic, fiscal and monetary policies in the months ahead during phase 3 as well?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in his fundamental premise, which I notice he put forward the other day. On the question of monetary policy, I am sure he will take satisfaction from the fact that the monetary supply is firmly under control.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Recalling that the Prime Minister last week, while still resisting the proposals to use food subsidies for the very high-priced foods, nevertheless seemed willing to discuss such proposals with the two sides of

industry, may I ask him to say whether there is any truth in reports that the Common Market Commission, under Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome, is warning Britain not to introduce food subsidies as a means of fighting rising prices?

The Prime Minister: I said to the CBI and the TUC that in the context of our general discussions I was perfectly prepared to listen to any proposals that they had to make on food. I know of no formal statement by the Commission on this matter, nor do I know of any private representations. In fact, such things do not happen. In any event, as I have said already, on some foodstuffs the Government have provided subsidies. The right hon. Gentleman knows that on milk it is happening at the moment.

Mr. Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know of any private hint or public statement, will he consider the statement issued by Commission sources over the weekend which said that its rules preclude the use of food subsidies as such to fight rising prices but went on to say that the threshold idea in use in Belgium for offsetting the effects of higher prices, which I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be considering, is the only way round the rules of the Commission? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter again?

The Prime Minister: I am perfectly prepared to look into it. As I have told the House before, threshold agreements were offered to the CBI and the TUC in the discussions last year. No ()Teat interest was shown in them at that time. But there was a further discussion in the two meetings that we have had so far this summer, and much more work has been done on them.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Must it not be true that, if necessities become scarcer, and therefore dearer, and are subsidised by the State and are not also rationed, the result is that the richer get more of those necessities than the poorer? Is that the idea of social justice held by the Opposition? Was not my right hon. Friend right when he said that large subsidies must mean rationing?

The Prime Minister: That is true. Inevitably it leads in the end to rationing and also to what my hon. Friend has said.
which is that if there is a world shortage of certain foodstuffs, as there has been this year of meats and cereals, and countries are subsidising them, they increase the demand and push world prices still higher. Therefore, the spiral increases and the contributions that any Government have to make to subsidies becomes even greater. It is because of this open-ended commitment that Governments find themselves driven to rationing, as this country has found in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTERED WIVES

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make one Minister responsible for co-ordinating Government policies regarding giving advice and assistance to wives who have been subjected to violence.

The Prime Minister: I recognise that this is a grave and complex problem involving more than one Government Department. But the Departments concerned are working closely together and see no advantage in making one Minister responsible.

Mr. Ashley: I welcome and warmly appreciate that recognition of the importance of the problem. Is the Prime Minister aware that I have a dossier of cruelty, compiled in part from some remarkable letters which I have received from all over the country and in part by the Chiswick Aid Group, giving evidence of real brutality against certain women and children? I can show the Prime Minister examples of pregnant women giving birth to deformed and disabled children as a result of violence by their husbands. There have been a number of serious allegations against certain police officers for neglecting their responsibilities to certain women and children, and equally serious allegations against some social service departments. If I give that dossier to the Prime Minister, will he consult his right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Services with a view to finding the best means of dealing with the problem of domestic brutality which so far has remained undiscovered under the guise of normal domestic disputes?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have all the

information in his possession, I shall arrange for all of it to be investigated immediately. The Chiswick Women's Aid Group has sent a copy of its very full and detailed report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As a result, he is now considering whether he should issue guidelines to local authorities about the aspects of the problem that the report raises. These are largely the difficulties of providing accommodation for women who find themselves in this very unhappy position. As for criminal charges, if the police have failed to take action these matters can of course be investigated. But many people understand that, when the police make an investigation, often they find it difficult to get evidence. For understandable reasons, many such women refuse to give evidence against their husbands.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the danger that these women are in is often considerably prolonged because it can take so long for a grievous bodily harm charge to come before the court? Can my right hon. Friend imagine what it means to a woman who has been attacked viciously by her husband and has also had her children attacked to have to remain in the house for many months because the case against her husband is held up in the court backlog? Will my right hon. Friend don the mantle of Sir Galahad and at least see what can be done about this?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, I will see whether the processes in the courts can be expedited in these cases. But the House is well aware of the difficulties involved in this. It raises the other aspect to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) addressed himself and to which the Chiswick Women's Aid Group has addressed itself, which is the problem of providing accommodation in the meantime for women who have undergone this experience and want to be away from their husbands.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL BROADCAST

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to make a ministerial broadcast.

The Prime Minister: The House should assume that I have no plans to make


ministerial broadcast unless and until I make an announcement to the contrary.

Mr. Rost: In view of the concern about rising food prices, would not it be a good idea for my right hon. Friend to remind the nation on television that world shortages are pushing up food prices, as is the TUC boycott on French food imports, but that the common agricultural policy, by stimulating production, will make us less vulnerable to world food prices and that in any event the average family's income over the past three years has more than kept pace with the average weekly food bill?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only solution for this or any other country at the moment is increased production of food supplies. That is what this country is doing in its own agricultural industry, and it is what the Labour Government so signally failed to do.

Mr. Healey: If the Prime Minister finds it embarrassing to make a broadcast about food prices in the light of his election promises, could he at least spend some time in his next ministerial broadcast describing precisely what he finds to be the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism and telling the nation what he proposes to do about it?

The Prime Minister: The House, which is better informed than the right hon. Member for Leeds. East (Mr. Healey), knows that company law is to be reformed in the next Session.

Mr. Trew: If in his next ministerial broadcast my right hon. Friend touches on exports, he may care to point out that in 1970 nearly one-quarter of our visible exports were contributed by the 25 leading manufacturing companies. Ought we not to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on continuing to disown his party's proposals for nationalising such companies?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I warmly join my hon. Friend in putting forward those congratulations. The only question that this raises in one's mind is how long one will be able to continue putting them forward.

Mr. Dell: When the Prime Minister next makes such a broadcast, will he

explain to Merseyside especially his policy of confiscating the savings of bond holders, most of them with small incomes, in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, in view of the Government's generous settlement with the shareholders in Rolls-Royce?

The Prime Minister: The responsibility is that of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. It was its responsibility to run its organisation efficiently and to look after those who had invested money in it. In the case of Rolls-Royce, the Government purchased that organisation and paid a sum which has now been agreed between the receiver and the Government.

Sir G. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn to the recent statement by Mr. Hugh Scanlon to the effect that the nation may expect increased disturbances in the autumn, no doubt destined to coincide with the arrival of phase 3 of the incomes policy? Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear now, well in advance of the autumn, that the present Government do not propose to be browbeaten by Mr. Hugh Scanlon or by any other leading member of the TUC?[AN HON. MEMBER: "Confrontation."]

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says "confrontation". If there is to be a confrontation, it is quite obvious that it does not come from the Government. What we have regretted—and the Leader of the Opposition has joined me in this—is that Mr. Scanlon is not apparently now to be able to take part in the continuing talks with the TUC. He shares the view, which we both share, that it would be more effective if he were able to do so, and I wish that he were.
I have read the article concerned, and it seemed to me that Mr. Scanlon was making an important point, which is that both British management and British workers need to do more about investment, and that profit is also necessary for investment. The form of his criticism was that profits are being made but that people cannot yet see a return in investment.
It behoves management and firms generally to point out the investment plans that they are carrying through, in exactly the same way, for example, as British Leyland did when it announced its own vast scheme.

Mr. Pardoe: If by any chance the Prime Minister were to find himself on television in the near future, does he realise that the assurance to the British public that food prices are rising because of the world situation would be less than satisfactory? Will he announce to the public when he next makes a broadcast on this subject whether he intends to adopt the Liberal policy of guaranteeing wages against food price increases? Will he tell the British public the next time lie wants to take our policy whether it is a case of theft or borrowing without the owner's consent, or the next time the Prime Minister wants a gift will he thank us for it?

The Prime Minister: In the talks with the TUC and the CBI these are matters which can be explored in any respect in this way. We are not limited to any particular proposal. Everyone realises that. Therefore, we shall discuss them. What I can tell the British public, as the hon. Gentleman has raised this point, is that what matters is the standard of living, and that the standard of living is expressed in their real disposable income. The figures for this are available. The real disposable income is money in people's hands after allowing for tax changes and price increases.
The real disposable income during the period of office of the Leader of the Opposition rose by 91 per cent. in nearly six years. In the present Government's period of office, three years, it has already risen by 12¾ per cent.

Mr. Body: When he next makes a broadcast, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the undertaking he gave to the House that he wants to see a complete review of the common agricultural policy? This review should include the abolition of import duties on foodstuffs which are not scarce in the world, because such a reduction would have an effect upon food prices.

The Prime Minister: It is not a question of merely wanting to see a review of the common agricultural policy. This has been agreed by the Community and the review is now taking place at official level, and it will be discussed by the Ministers of Agriculture and, if necessary, by the full Council of Ministers in the autumn. My hon. Friend can be assured

that the whole common agricultural policy is under review.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted, can he deny that, during the period of the total so-called freeze, prices rose a great deal more than incomes and the standard of living fell during that period? Will he now answer the question that I have repeatedly put to him: what are his estimates of the situation for phase 2? Does he think that earnings will outstrip prices or that prices will outstrip earnings in phase 2?

'the Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the figures that I have just given. They show very clearly the considerable improvement in the standard of living in three years over that of his administration in six years. That is what the British people understand.
Secondly, concerning the freeze, there is no freeze. The freeze is a wage increase of £1 plus 4 per cent., which is an average of 8 per cent. In many cases, in the negotiations by trade unions, the lower-paid have benefited—for example, in the Civil Service—and those who are getting the higher wages have been limited to £250. So there is no freeze, and it is a gross distortion of the truth to say that there is a freeze.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has really distorted the question. Will he now answer it? I asked him whether he could deny that in the freeze, the standstill—phase 1, six months from last November—prices rose more than wages. It is no good ducking that question. Can he deny it, and can he give us his forecast for phase 2?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that forecasts of that kind are never given by any Government.
Concerning the standstill, if the right hon. Gentleman is referring to those particular five months, the rises in non-foodstuffs were minute, as he knows, and the rise in fresh foodstuffs went on. The right hon. Gentleman must not overlook the fact that already a very large number of workers had had their annual settlement before the standstill began and they were benefiting from it. So now they are getting what is not a freeze but an average


of 8 per cent. and they are, therefore, benefiting.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Buchan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the approval yesterday by the Price Commission of increases in food prices and the responsibility of the Government in this connection.
This matter is specific, Mr. Speaker, because it comes from a specific body established by the Government to investigate and approve, and, perhaps more rarely, disapprove, of specific applications for price increases.
It is specific because yesterday manufacturers of a wide range of specific foodstuffs, from meat to marmalade, were given approval to raise prices by specific stated amounts, ranging up to 14 per cent.
It is hardly necessary to stress the importance of this matter, as evidenced by today's exchanges. Every housewife and hon. Member knows that this is the key social issue that we are facing. Yesterday's decision will affect the wellbeing and the living standards of every family in this country. It is important also because recent figures suggest, at any rate, that expenditure on essentials is now beginning to outstrip the incomes of the working people of this country.
It is urgent because the decision was made only yesterday and because it is not subject to regulation, instruments or debate in the House or to other parliamentary control. Today, therefore, is the only opportunity that we have of raising this matter and of bringing about a scrutiny of this decision; that is, by moving the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me about this matter and to give me notice of his intention. I have studied his letter carefully. I have listened to what he has had to say. I have also had some regard to what has taken place in the House today. But my decision is a very simple one as to whether the matter should be debated today or tomorrow. In my view it would not be appropriate to have a debate on this matter today or tomorrow under Standing Order No. 9. Other ways must be found. I am afraid that I cannot grant the application.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],

That the draft Family Income Supplement (Computation) (No. 2) Regulations 1973 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Prior.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],

That the draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1973 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Prior.]

Question agreed to.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT) BILL

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to extend the right of abode to the husbands of women who have such right and to the widows or former wives of those with right of abode who are citizens by registration.
When I applied to the Table Office three weeks ago for the opportunity to present the Bill, it was my intention to introduce a rather wider measure which would remove the retroactive provisions of the Immigration Act 1971. But, in view of last Tuesday's debate and the very disappointing vote, I have reluctantly decided that the House is not yet willing to do that. I have, therefore, limited the Bill to a less controversial proposal; namely, to give British girls the rights which their brothers enjoy, the right to marry whom they choose, and for the family to live in Britain afterwards. This is an anti-discrimination measure, directed at both sexual and racial discrimination.
The present law is that the wife of a man who is a citizen of the United Kingdom by birth, by adoption or by naturalisation has the right to come and live in the United Kingdom. The husband of a British woman has no corresponding right. There are provisions under which, if hardship would be caused to the wife by her being required to live in her husband's country, the husband may be admitted, but the exception seems to be very narrow.
In a recent letter to me, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, wrote:
… a woman who marries a man who is not a United Kingdom resident is normally expected to live in her husband's country unless this would cause her exceptional hardship.
If there were wider awareness of this rule, many parents with daughters at university, where there are numbers of foreign and Commonwealth students, would be more worried than they are.
If my son marries a Malaysian girl, they are both entitled to settle in Britain if they wish, but if my daughter marries a Malaysian boy, she will have to make

her home in Malaysia unless she can show exceptional hardship. The word "exceptional" has crept in. Hardship alone is not enough. I know of one case in which permission has recently been given, in which, under South African law, apartheid would prevent the parties from living together. But does one have to be in such extreme circumstances to qualify? I am afraid that probably one does.
The letter from the Under-Secretary to which I have referred dealt with the case of Mr. Georghios Kyriacou, and said:
Mr. Kyriacou was admitted to this country on 4th December 1970 for one month as a visitor, on a condition which precluded his taking employment. A week later, he married a woman born in this country whose parents had come from Cyprus.
They had already known one another very well through holidays.
He then applied for the revocation of his conditions of admission to enable him to stay here permanently but his request was refused on the grounds that he did not qualify to remain here in right of his wife. As you are aware, a woman who marries a man who is not a United Kingdom resident is normally expected to live in her husband's country unless this would cause her exceptional hardship, a factor which in our view is not present in this case. Mr. Kyriacou was, therefore, allowed until 30th August 1971 to make arangements to leave the country. His appeal against this decision, under the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, was dismissed by an independent adjudicator in January 1972; leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against the adjudicator's determination was refused. Mr. Kyriacou, however, still did not leave the country and he was arrested last August.
The Home Secretary takes a serious view of offences against the immigration control, and it is his usual practice to act on a recommendation for deportation made by a court for such offences unless there are strong grounds for not doing so. Mr. Kyriacou was informed that his marriage to a woman born in this country did not give a right to remain here, but, even after his appeal had been dismissed, he continued to remain here illegally. The Home Secretary, therefore, decided to make a deportation order against him.
Mrs. Kyriacou, in a letter which she has sent to many MPs, said:
My husband has committed no criminal offence. He is not a political agitator or a liability to anyone. His ex-employer is in fact very anxious to re-employ him. I am a British subject by birth, my baby was born here. If the deportation order is carried out, then in effect my baby and I will be deported too.
We love England and want to remain here. In particular, I want my baby to enjoy the same kindnesses, considerations and freedoms


that I have experienced, and that only a life in Britain would permit.
The proposed deportation of my husband seems very unfair, and I think discriminates against me as a woman. If I were a British male, I could marry a foreign girl and there would be no question of her being deported. But purely because I am a woman, I do not have sufficient status to confer the right of residence in Britain upon my husband.
I can't help being a woman.
Mr. Kyriacou, Mrs. Kyriacou and the baby are now living in Cyprus, the whole family, in effect, having been deported.
There is an exception in the case of Commonwealth husbands with a grandparent born in the United Kingdom, so the rule is both racially and sexually discriminatory.
Although I have quoted only one case, every hon. Member to whom I have spoken about the Bill tells me that he knows of cases in which the rule is causing great distress—although whether that is sufficient to qualify as "exceptional hardship" is a very different matter.
The rules were changed in 1969. Before that, husbands were accorded similar rights of entry to those now given to wives. The then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), explained to the Select Committee that the change was introduced because the number of men seeking entry as fiancés was evidence of abuse, and that if fiancés continued to be admitted, many of them would not in fact marry.
Quite apart from the question of whether, to prevent such an abuse, it is necessary to deprive a large number of people of a fundamental freedom—the right of a family in which husband and wife come from different countries to choose in which they will live is a fundamental freedom—there is no need for the present very restrictive rules in order to avoid abuses.
My Bill refers to those who have actually married and remain married. A

marriage of convenience that is soon dissolved would confer no right on anyone. A widow would have the right to remain as at present, but the right would be extended to those whose husbands were British by registration. The present rule can cause hardship to a widow who has severed all contacts in her own country so as to marry and live in Britain.
Abuse by those claiming to be fiancés can be prevented by changing the immigration rules. In all but exceptional circumstances, the girl can be required to meet her fiancé at the port of entry and she can be interviewed beforehand. I am not suggesting that fiancés whose marriages have been arranged by advertisement, correspondence or parental negotiation should be admitted—that is also an abuse of personal freedom—but in most genuine cases there will be photographs or other evidence which will readily establish a genuine personal relationship.
It is to enable such people to marry and to remain in Britain that my Bill is designed. I believe that the Bill is an essential ingredient of fundamental human rights, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Douglas-Mann, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Clinton Davis, Mr. John Grant, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Michael Meacher and Mr. A. W. Stallard.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1971 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to extend the right of abode to the husbands of women who have such right and to the widows or former wives of those with right of abode who are citizens by registration, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 1

STATUS OF NORTHERN IRELAND AS PART OF UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Speaker: We are to discuss first Amendment No. 1, with which it will be convenient to discuss also the following Amendments:
No. 2, in page 1, line 15, at end insert:
'A poll shall not be held until after a resolution passed by a two thirds majority of the Northern Ireland Assembly requiring such a poll'.
No. 26, in page 31, line 1, leave out Schedule 1.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be possible to have a separate Division on Amendment No. 2 in the event of Amendment No. 1 being defeated? They raise slightly different points, and it was intimated in Committee that we might have separate Divisions in that case.

Mr. Speaker: Provided that they are debated together, I will agree to separate Divisions.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'Ireland' to end of line 15.
The House will recall, perhaps even without the benefit of the normal HANSARD, that we discussed an amendment on 14th June which I could not withdraw because, technically, it had not been moved, and which was exactly the same as that which I have just moved. The Secretary of State informed us that he required time to find out and test the reactions of parties and others in Northern Ireland to the sense of the amendment. He quite rightly made the point that we could return to the amendment at a later stage. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) withdrew his amendment and we did not

persist with ours. We are, therefore. debating the same subject today.
As I made clear on 14th June, our amendment was concerned with the machinery of testing the consent of the community in Northern Ireland as to its status with regard to the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's dominions. We were concerned with the wider aspects of the clause, and for that reason perhaps I may be allowed to put the matter in perspective. The major part of this clause is concerned with status.
Perhaps I could remind the House of its wording. Clause 1, with which our amendment deals, says:
It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom, and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act.
This issue of status matters to us in the United Kingdom as much as it matters to the people of the Province of Northern Ireland. The status of the people of Northern Ireland is not something for them alone; it is a matter for us too.
I have made clear on many occasions that the view of the Labour Party on this question of status is that Northern Ireland just cannot be put into the South of Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. It cannot be done, and it does not need part of a clause to say it. It is a fact of life. That is something which we believe implicitly.
In any event the South could not cope with 1 million reluctant Protestants in the community. The Prime Minister of the South talks about consent, as do the Opposition leaders of the political parties in the North such as the Social Democratic and Labour Party.
I have also pointed out the other side of the medal, which is paragraph 112 of the White Paper, which many people regard as the profound change that came about as a result of direct rule; namely, the all-Ireland dimension. The people of Northern Ireland have just voted and are engaged with their leaders in deciding how they will carry out the intentions of the Act of Parliament and the White Paper.
It is important that we make clear what it is that the Government put to the people of Ireland in the White Paper. Paragraph 112 said:
True progress in these matters"—
that is, with regard to North and South—
can only be achieved by consent. Accordingly, following elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government will invite the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the leaders of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland opinion to participate with them in a conference to discuss how the three objectives set out in the Paper for Discussion may best be achieved, that is:
(a) the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and of the possibility—which will have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent change in that status;
It was this paragraph 112 that we regarded as the major change arising from the White Paper. It is paragraph 112 which matters. It is a pragmatic approach which says that the people of Northern Ireland are to work together in an All-Ireland Council on all sorts of matters, from tourism to security, I hope.
That will develop only if the consent of the majority of the people of the North can be obtained. This was the approach that mattered in the White Paper, and it is the approach that matters in Clause 1. This is the way that North and South will work together.
It was for this reason that I said to some of my hon. Friends who had doubts about the pledge concerning the link with the United Kingdom that they should leave that alone. I argued that the White Paper was a compact between the people of Northern Ireland and ourselves. I said that we hoped that it would not fail, that we had not gone through the last 15 months in a curious parliamentary style of supporting the Government more often than not because we believed in their approach or nothing. I pointed out that if this failed we would have to think again but we hoped it would not fail. If it did all of the constitutional Bill would be at risk.
This was the background to the plebiscite dealt with at the end of the clause, concerning the status of Northern Ireland. We on the Labour side are not against a plebiscite in principle but to hog-tie the future in 10 years plus to a particular method of ascertaining the consent of the

people of the North would in our view be foolish. I reminded the House of the occasion at the time of direct rule when the Prime Minister, speaking from the Dispatch Box, said:
This Government, and their predecessors, have given solemn and repeated assurances that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. We have decided that it would be appropriate to arrange for the views of the people of Northern Ireland to be made known on this question from time to time. We therefore propose in due course to invite Parliament to provide for a system of regular plebiscites in Northern Ireland about the Border, the first to be held as soon as practicable in the near future and others at intervals of a substantial period of years thereafter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1862.]
I pointed out that one of the things that the Prime Minister went on to say was that those plebiscites would be in addition to, and not in substitution for, the provisions in the Ireland Act 1949 which require the consent of the Northern Ireland Parliament to any change in the border. The Prime Minister said that the position was not prejudiced by the temporary prorogation of that Parliament.
What I argued then was not that the Prime Minister was misleading the House. On the contrary, on that occasion the Prime Minister was arguing and acting on the assumption that the Parliament of Northern Ireland was only temporarily prorogued. Only 15 months ago that was the case. It is not the case now. My argument is based on only one point: we do not know what the circumstances are going to be in 10 years' time. The Prime Minister 15 months ago made an assumption, a temporary prognostication, and he was wrong. The chances in Ireland, let alone in any other constitution-building, let alone in any other part of the world, are that anybody who attempts to prognosticate about circumstances in 10 years' time is more likely to be wrong than right.

4.0 p.m.

We are saying to the Government "Do not move so far ahead". By all means, speak to the people of Northern Ireland of consent but on the machinery aspect one should not commit one's self in this way. We are not against the plebiscite in principle but this runs counter to the genius for flexibility that we have in this


country in constitution-building over the years. Just as the majority for union has not convinced the minority in the North as a result of the border poll—and it has not—so the future majority for union, if there were one, would certainly not convince the minority that a union was necessary.

In my view, it is not possible, and I choose my words carefully, that if in 1984, unless something had happened in connection with paragraph 112 of the White Paper, there were a majority of the people in that province who wanted unification, there would be a substantial minority who would not go into the South. To imagine that the status of the North could be changed, as we see things now, by a plebiscite is to mislead the people of the North. I want to say to the Protestants of the North as I have said it so often on this side of the House that the plain fact is that they cannot be moved into the South without their consent; and consent is not going to be measured by a simple arithmetical process. Consent is going to arise as a result of paragraph 112, if it works, all working together day by day, through drainage, tourism and heaven knows what; and there is a lot of convincing of the people of the North to be done, given the facts of history and given the facts of the last four years.

We on this side of the House believe that to talk in this way at this time about a plebiscite in association with Schedule 2 is a grave mistake. We say to the Government "Leave this bit out." I know that there are good friends of mine in Northern Ireland who want a plebiscite. Frankly, I believe they are wrong. There comes a time when we in Great Britain must be counted, and this is such a time. Nobody is being sold down the river at this point. Indeed, what we are giving is an assurance of assurances to the Protestants. What we are saying is that it cannot be done by plebiscite unless something changes. We are saying to them that when one starts to say a plebiscite is the way of doing it, one is making the assumption that it will happen. It is this kind of reassurance they want.

If the White Paper approach fails because leaders of parties in the Six Counties, as a result of the elections and anything that happened subsequently, are not prepared to work it—and again I

choose my words carefully—so be it. We in this part of these islands have never managed to run Ireland very well, from the days of Henry II onwards, and it would not be the first time that we had failed. But the Government, with the support of the Opposition since March of last year, have genuinely made a new approach, a genuine approach. That is contrary to the normal partisan methods of British politics when even down to the drains of Northampton we in this House see fit to divide.

On this we have supported the Government. It is a matter for us ultimately if that happens and so it is with this plebiscite. It is not for us, in the face of history, to support even our friends with this possibility if we believe it to be wrong. It runs contrary to paragraph 112 of the White Paper. The North can never be pushed into the South, even by an adding up of votes, with a majority appearing, unless it were very substantial. I would advise my hon. Friends, on the basis of our approach over the last 15 months to the Government, that on this occasion we should vote against the Government. It adds up to a good deal more than machinery. The whole approach of the White Paper, particularly with regard to relations between the North and the South, is pragmatic, and this is the right approach. The plebiscite approach goes against that, and I advise my hon. Friends to vote against it.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has made his case again in much the same terms as he did on the Committee stage. On that occasion I said that having heard the arguments we were prepared to consider again whether this was the right approach.
In view of the somewhat difficult nature of achieving our papers at the present time perhaps I may read exactly what I said:
In view of the views expressed I would suggest that I should be allowed to consider them and to test reaction in Northern Ireland to the idea that, while preserving the possibility of having this method in future, we should not write it into the Bill.
Then I went on to say:
But I must warn the Committee that if I find that we"—


the Government—
are pledged, if I find that people feel very strongly and that there is a very strong body of opinion that wishes to continue with the poll, I might then have to come back to the House during a later stage of the Bill to say that I believed it was right to hate this method.
Accordingly, after the debate I consulted widely in Northern Ireland on two points: whether there were those who wished to have a plebiscite written into the Bill and equally—and I must say I regard this as of the highest importance—whether they regarded the Government as pledged to this provision.
I found on the first point, as the hon. Gentleman recognised when he said that some of his friends in Northern Ireland wanted the plebiscite, that there was a considerable body of opinion which believed that a provision for a plebiscite should be written into the Bill as it stands at the present time.
I also found a very strong body of opinion, expressed forcibly to me, that considered that the Government were pledged to this provision by my right hon. Friend's statement at the time of the institution of direct rule.
On the first point I must make the simple proposition to the hon. Gentleman again that, while I agree that one cannot prognosticate for 10 years ahead in Northern Ireland, and one would be a very stupid person if one tried to do so, I do at the same time maintain that this provision does not say that at the end of 10 years there has to be a poll. It does not make any such provision at all. It simply says there may be a poll if that is the wish of the people at that time, and if this House decides at that time, as a result of all relevant circumstances that a poll is desirable; that is all that is said.

Rev. Ian Paisley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he is referring to the "wish of the people at that time" he is referring to the people of Northern Ireland represented in the Assembly, if the Assembly is still in existence, or is referring to this Parliament as representing the people of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I may come a little later to that point, which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) very properly puts, and which

arises on the amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State is properly referring to the further machinery in the schedule, but is not what is being said that there can be no change, whatever the timing, without a plebiscite, whenever it might be? That was the point I was making.

Mr. Whitelaw: If one has to decide—and it is something one would have to decide—one of the factors that is in the whole basis of status to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that the status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. There must be a way of determining their views. I maintain again that a poll is certainly a proper way of deciding what their views are.
I turn to the question of the pledge, which I regard as being of the highest importance. I have been accused many times during the past year of going back on some word of the Government. I do not accept many of the criticisms. Frequently I have been accused of going back on something and then when I have kept the Government's word everybody has forgotten that I have kept it, having previously accused me of going back on it. But that is how I have to live, and I do not mind.
Many people very much wanted the border poll in the first instance. Some of them now do not want a further plebiscite written into the Bill. There is nothing particularly inconsistent in that. It may be that in 10 years' time those same people will again want just that sort of poll, and, therefore, there is an element of sense in providing for it in the Bill.
Above everything else, I was accused of going back on the Government's word about a border poll. I did not. The House passed a measure, and we had a border poll. Now I find that people say that if the Government and the House do not write the provision into the Bill they will be going back on the word of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am not prepared to do that, because I believe that it is destructive of confidence at a time when confidence is very important. I made it clear to the House that if I found such a body of opinion


should have to stick to the Bill as it stood.
I hope that hon. Members will feel that in agreeing to test reaction, after hearing the arguments in Committee, I have carried out my commitment to the House. I have previously made clear what would be our position if, having found that we were pledged and that people felt we were pledged, which was perhaps even more important, I had to say that I was standing firm. The hon. Member for Leeds, South said that the opportunity would exist for the House to vote against the provision. Even if he and his right hon. and hon. Friends decide to do so, that in no way changes the status as set out in the clause. I regard that as very important, and I know that he does.
I turn to the amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South and the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North about whether the poll should be held only after a two-thirds majority had passed it in the Assembly. There are two objections to that amendment. First, it is clear in the Bill that we are preserving for this Parliament matters of elections. I believe that to be right. Secondly, if such a proposal were written into the Bill, I believe that a great deal of time in the Assembly could he devoted to protracted arguments on the border issue at a time when other and more profitable arguments could be pursued. As the time came up, the danger of such a provision would be that the Assembly would be permanently arguing about the border issue. That would be wrong, and it is what the House deliberately seeks to avoid. The Assembly would tend to do exactly what we seek to get away from.
It would equally be absurd to imagine—here I come to what the hon. Member for Antrim, North says—that in deciding whether there should be a poll under the Bill the House would not take the views of people in Northern Ireland, that it would not hear the views of the Executive and the Assembly and take a general indication of whether a poll was generally wanted.

4.15 p.m.

In common sense, if we can look forward to something 10 years ahead, with provision for a poll but no compulsion to have it, there would have to be

convincing evidence before everyone set out to have one. It would be necessary to be clear that it was widely wanted before the House would be prepared to have it. I do not think that representatives of the various views in Northern Ireland would be particularly keen to have such a plebiscite unless there had been a demonstrable change of view in the 10-year period. Neither side would be likely to want it at that stage. Therefore, as one does not have to have a poll and the House would consider carefully before deciding that one was necessary, I believe that it is a sensible way of proceeding.

The Bill also makes it clear that no such poll could be held for 10 years. That gives a period when the position is clear and cannot be changed. If thereafter it is found that a poll is widely desired, it is possible to have one, but there is no compulsion.

I believe that the Bill as it stands is the right way to proceed. It removes uncertainty for the 10 years; it provides for a poll if one is then widely wanted and if the House decides to have one; but it does not mean that a poll must be held then. It preserves to the House the decision. I believe that that is right, because it would not be in the best interests of the Assembly to become involved in argument on the matter. At the same time, the views of all concerned would naturally have to be taken into account, and would be, before any such poll was ordered.

On that basis, I must ask the House to reject the hon. Gentleman's amendment. In saying that, I want to make it clear that there is nothing between us on the basis of the clause and status. Our difference is on the machinery and how the provision is carried out, how one discovers the consent. My argument is, first, that I have found many people in Northern Ireland who want the provision in its present form and, secondly. that they believe the Government are pledged to it. On those two grounds. I must stand by the Bill as it is, as I said in Committee.

Captain Orr: The House is in a very curious position, because we are proceeding with the final stages of a Bill setting out a constitution of which a major part is an Assembly, and yet not


only has that Assembly already been provided by legislation but its members have been elected.
When considering the later stages of the Bill, it is important that we should put out of our minds the election which has taken place. If we are doing anything at all that is sensible, we are providing a constitution based upon certain principles which may be right or wrong, and we should argue it on that basis rather than on the basis of something that has happened. We must not only provide for the Assembly in the light of the election which has just taken place; we are providing for it in the light of any future elections to it which may take place, provided Part II of the Bill is ever brought into operation.
In Committee, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, I tabled an amendment which was very nearly the same as his, in which we argued the case against holding a poll. I remain convinced that writing a poll into the Bill as a permanent method of testing for the foreseeable future whether the consent of the people of Northern Ireland can be obtained to their ceasing to be part of the United Kingdom is nonsense.
In arguing against my Amendment No. 2, my right hon. Friend found himself—as I think even he will concede—in considerable difficulty. The reason is that the requirement for periodic plebiscites to be attached to the pledge in the Bill is fundamentally indefensible, for the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Leeds, South when speaking for the Opposition on the subject of consent. How do we determine the consent of a people? How do we determine through a plebiscite whether the people of Northern Ireland shall cease to be part of the United Kingdom? Does a majority of one mean that they cease to be part of the United Kingdom?
The hon. Member for Leeds, South properly pointed to the fact that even if, as a result of a plebiscite, there were a small majority in favour of Northern Ireland's leaving the United Kingdom, and even if there were a small majority in favour of Northern Ireland's joining the Irish Republic, there would still be the problem of a substantial minority

over whose dead bodies that would happen.
I pray in aid here a remarkable speech made yesterday by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. Although there are a number of things with which I and some of my hon. Friends naturally disagree—for instance, the implication that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is not an impartial police force, and things of that sort—none the less, it was a remarkable speech.
There are one or two things which it is important for the House to note. Speaking of a united Ireland, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic said:
To carry through such a settlement, even if it were possible, would be to double the problem at a stroke"—
a happy phrase—
since the majority in Northern Ireland would overnight become a disgruntled minority in a new Ireland.
We have no wish to see the tragedy and division of Northern Ireland re-enacted on a magnified scale in the island as a whole.
Those are wise and realistic words, and in considering the future of Northern Ireland and the clause the House ought to be aware of them.
The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic said another important thing that is relevant to the clause. It has been suggested by some people—the hon. Member for Leeds, South might not wish to be thought to have gone as far as this—that the settlement in the Bill is the last chance for Ulster and that if it does not succeed we shall have to think again. No one would disagree with that as a proposition, but the implication is that if the provisions of the constitution, so called, do not work there will have to be a rethink of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Captain Orr: The applause of hon. Gentlemen opposite reinforces the belief that that view is held. I am glad to say that it is not a view held by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, because he said that it would be " a prescription for civil war." He went on to say:
The prospect of such a civil war … would be equally abhorrent to and perhaps equally dangerous to Britain and, indeed, to Western Europe as a whole.
Those again are wise and realistic words.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: These are important times, and there are all sorts of semantic arguments about what is meant by "withdrawal". I am sneaking for all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that anyone who argues that, in a fit of pique, we should pull out of Northern Ireland and sit back and watch our television sets at night and see the bloodshed that would be spilled by the two sides is adopting the wrong approach, and I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to put that sort of argument into the mouths of my hon. Friends.

Captain Orr: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I should not wish to put words into his mouth. I know that he is a responsible person and would not wish that to come about, but there are implications in saying to the people of Ulster that if they cannot work this constitution, if they find that it is impossible to reach the kind of agreement that would permit the Executive to be set up and Part II of the Bill to come into operation, we shall have to rethink the matter.
Quite plainly the implication is, is it not, that we shall have to rethink the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom? In other words, the pledge that is embodied in the clause that is being debated is not worth tuppence. That is what people are saying.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is extremely important to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope that none of the imputations which he is making can in any way be levelled against the Government. That kind of thing has never been said by me on behalf of the Government, or by any other member of the Government.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I should not impute such thinking to him. I fully endorse what he said. I accept absolutely the pledge given by Her Majesty's Government that Northern Ireland shall not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of her people, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has once more put that on the record because it is of vital importance to confidence in Northern Ireland. All I am saying to hon. Gentlemen opposite is that some of the things they are saying carry

that implication and it creates damage and harm.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be clear about this. If the British Government—any British Government; the present one or the future British Government—were to test the opinion of the British people on whether there should be a constitutional change in the relationship between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, there would be an overwhelming response by the British people that there ought to be a change.
That does not mean, however, that the British people would support Northern Ireland's being forced into the Republic. But it does mean that they would demand that Northern Ireland should be declared independent of the United Kingdom and that a date should be set for the withdrawal of British troops. Let there be no mistake about it. If there were a test of opinion, that would be the answer.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed what I was saying. Every word that he says is meat, drink and ammunition to the practitioners of violence. Every word that he says encourages the Provisional IRA to go on battling. Every word that he says encourages the practitioners of violence on the other side to arouse fears and to say that they must arm themselves in case the hon. Gentleman ever becomes a member of the Government.

Mr. George Lawson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should be careful. He used a term which seemed to take in all hon. Members on this side of the House. I, for my part, completely repudiate the assertion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved).

4.30 p.m.

Captain Orr: Fair enough. I accept precisely what the hon. Member said. When I was referring to hon. Members opposite I meant to include only some hon. Members. There are many members of the Labour Party who behave in this matter like the hon. Member for Leeds, South—in a responsible manner. They believe that when their leaders


underwrite the pledge that the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom shall not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland this is the case. I accept that they are sincere. But there is wild and dangerous talk from people like the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). Such talk is dangerous to the position of our troops in Ulster, and it is highly dangerous in every way.
I maintain that the House of Commons cannot have it both ways. The House is saying to the people of Ulster that the pledge stands irrespective of the few wild voices. That pledge from this House is that the constitutional status of the Province will not be altered without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. But the House cannot then say to the people of Northern Ireland that they must work an unworkable constitution or it will change its mind.

Mr. Rees: The timing of debate is sometimes fortuitous. This is a difficult week. All of us in this House have attempted to play some part in events. However, we must get clear the issue of walking out on bloodshed. I have attempted to put the matter in temperate words. However, there is another approach—the White Paper approach. I make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who carries weight in Northern Ireland, and to other of his hon. Friends. The Bill is not yet through Parliament, and to talk about it being unworkable is as irresponsible as the remarks of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complains.

Captain Orr: I do not believe that it is irresponsible to talk about the Bill being unworkable. It is to be as realistic as was the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic when he was speaking about Irish union. We are trying to instil in this House some degree of reality over the Ulster situation about what is and what is not possible. I do not want to stray beyond Clause 1. I do not want to be drawn again into what might be called the "unworkability" argument. We discussed that at great length in Committee. I do not want to prejudice the work of the Assembly, and if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make this constitution work I say more power to him.
If he can make it work, if it is possible to erect an Executive which will command a majority in the Assembly and which will carry out all the requirements of consent laid down in Clause 2, no one will be more delighted than I. I simply say that I do not believe it is possible.

Mr. Michael English: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer one simple question to which we should all like to know the answer? He made various assumptions about Members on the Labour side of the House, but if there were only two possibilities—either to be ruled as this House wishes as part of the United Kingdom, or not to be part of the United Kingdom—will he say which he would prefer?

Captain Orr: I have no doubt whatever. That is an easy question to answer. We are part of the United Kingdom. We shall be ruled in accordance with the law passed by this House, not by vague wishes expressed in debate. I made it plain in Committee that the position of the Ulster people is that we will obey the law. We will provide people to be elected to the Assembly, but there is nothing in the law which the House is now proposing to pass which says that we must agree with this or that. All it says is that the Secretary of State will not devolve power unless we agree. It is not a part of the law that we must enter into coalitions. It may be the vague corporate will of this House, but it is not the law.

Mr. Rees: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said many times that he is a good member of the United Kingdom. He disagrees with what the Government and the Opposition have suported. Will he as a member of the United Kingdom try to work the Bill?

Captain Orr: I shall try in so far as it is conceivably possible to obey the law. I will advise my friends to act within the framework of the law laid down by the United Kingdom. I have already advised people that they should not in any circumstances take any unconstitutional or unlawful action which would mean that the Assembly would not work.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Do these comments not come very strange from the lips of the Opposition spokesman when his party, with the support of the trade unions, is


trying to kill an Act of this House—the Industrial Relations Act? They are quite entitled to do that. I am just as entitled to campaign against this Bill to see that it is changed.

Mr. Rees: If people are prepared to work against it, that is one thing. As yet, however, I have not seen Mr. Vic Feather talking about guns and bullets, which is an important distinction.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have not been talking about guns and bullets either.

Captain Orr: May I intervene in the exchanges taking place in the middle of my speech? The point about the Industrial Relations Act was very properly made by a Labour Member during the Committee stage. Of course, a Bill passed by the Sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom becomes the law, but if it proves to be unworkable no one can make it work. We can go back to the Parliament of the United Kingdom when it becomes plain that the law requires to be changed.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Will my hon. and gallant Friend agree that if this power is to reside in this House we should have proper representation in this House so that the people of Northern Ireland can exercise their democratic rights? If they are to respect this House they should have full representation here.

Captain Orr: I am delighted to have given way to my hon. Friend because it gives me an opportunity to convey the congratulations of the House to him on his tremendous ability to operate the STV system and to be returned with so large a majority in County Down. We are glad to see him a member of the Assembly.
The point that my hon. Friend makes is correct. We argued about it at great length in Committee and it would be out of order to argue again that Northern Ireland is under-represented in this House. We talk about obeying the law passed by this House, but it is a House in which Northern Ireland is underrepresented. It is incumbent upon everyone in Northern Ireland to operate within the framework of the law as passed by this House, however. I would not support anybody who operated outside

the law, and I would not advise anybody to operate outside the law.
The law, however, cannot command agreement between people. It never can command that people will form coalitions, and it is no part of the law as will be passed by this House that those coalitions will or will not take place. If the coalitions are not formed and if it proves impossible to form an Executive, the House will have to think again. The only point which I am making is that the House will have to think again not about the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom—that has been pledged by both parties and has been reaffirmed by both parties today—but about how Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom shall be governed. That is what we are talking about.
I happen to believe—I am at one with the hon. Member for Leeds, South on this matter—that to write the requirement for a poll into the Bill is a mistake. That is not the only way in which consent can be determined. I prefer consent to be determined through representative authority. I preferred the pledge in its old form—namely, that the status would not be altered without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. The pledge was better in that form even though it was, as we argued, weak in itself.
If we must have the constitutional declaration in the Bill, as was ultimately decided in Committee, let us not determine how that consent shall be arrived at for all time. It is a pity to do so. My right hon. Friend told us in Committee that he would see whether there is a body of opinion which favoured the Bill. He is perfectly right. There is a body of opinion which favours the Bill. He said that he would determine whether he was pledged. I am not convinced that the words which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used were a pledge. There was a pledge that there might be periodic plebiscites but there was no pledge that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland would be determined by a referendum written into a Bill and embodied in the constitution.
None the less, my right hon. Friend is an honourable man and always has been. He considers himself pledged, and I am prepared to accept that. But that does


not alter our view about writing the poll into legislation. That is not necessarily a good thing. I hope, therefore, that when I advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill my right hon. Friend will not think that I am inviting him to alter his word in any way. I accept it as proper that he will oppose me.
If Amendment No. 1 is defeated Amendment No. 2 becomes important. I am entirely unconvinced by the argument used by my right hon. Friend that it would bring the border back into the Assembly. If anyone imagines that the border will ever be out of the Assembly, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The border will always dominate the Assembly. The border will be discussed in the Assembly every 10 years.
My right hon. Friend has already conceded the fact that it would be unthinkable to hold a border poll without discussing it with the Northern Ireland Executive or with the people in Northern Ireland. In that case, how on earth could it be kept out of the Assembly? That seems a wholly unconvincing argument.
Should the amendment be rejected I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for Amendment No. 2. I hope that the necessity will not arise. By far the best position for the House to take up is that the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is unalterable for the foreseeable future. A change of opinion in Ulster might change the position, but we should base all our legislation and thinking upon the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so. Any other way is total disaster.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) rightly said that if a law proves to be unworkable it is right to come back to this House and change the law. I think he was referring to the Bill which we are now discussing. He was saying that if the provisions of the Bill prove to be unworkable we can come back here in six months' time and amend or alter the Bill. What he does not seem to understand is that Clause I is no more legal than Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, or any of the other clauses.

Captain Orr: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at a speech which I made in Committee on this matter he will see that I do not particularly care for declaratory sections of Acts of Parliament. I do not regard them as law anyway.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall support Amendment No. 1 even though I think it is a pussyfooting amendment. I should have preferred an amendment to delete the whole of Clause The clause represents to the people of Northern Ireland something which cannot be represented to them and which has little meaning because the Bill, or any pledge given by the Secretary of State or by the Opposition Front Bench, cannot bind a future Parliament.
While I accept entirely that it is the people of Northern Ireland alone who can decide whether they wish to join with the South, it is the people of the United Kingdom—namely Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales—who have to make the decision whether Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. That cannot in logic be left entirely to the people of Northern Ireland.
Parliament at a future date will have to decide whether Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. I shall vote on that as will Government hon. Members or hon. Members from Northern Ireland. It may be that at this moment or within a few months the majority of hon. Members would accept the fact that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. But there could come a time—and I can assure the House that feeling in the country is getting stronger about this every day—when the House will decide that it no longer wants Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom.
If that position were reached the House could then pass a Bill which would deprive Northern Ireland of its status as part of the United Kingdom and deprive it of the aid which we are now pouring into it. I am not saying that that is something which will be done immediately. I am not saying that that is something which may be done in the next few years. All I am saying is that it might be done.
It is absurd to have a clause which pretends to bind future Westminster parliaments but cannot do so. At any time


any future Parliament can make a decision contrary to anything in the Bill and contrary to any pledge given by anybody. I should have preferred not to have had the clause in the Bill, but I shall vote as I wish to delete the poll. I think that goes a small way towards what I should wish. However, I should have preferred to see the whole clause disappear.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I signed Amendment No. 2, and I understand that it may be the subject of a separate Division but on the larger question of whether the possibility of a border poll should be in the Bill, I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and seek to sustain him against all his assailants today, whether they be Orange, Green or pink. After all, I am a modest pioneer in border poll legislation, and, although consistency is not the supreme political virtue, it does not do much harm sometimes to be consistent.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) made a characteristically eloquent speech.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It was also of my hon. Friend's usual high excellence.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I would not dissent from the description "high excellence" applied to the manner of the speech, but I do not altogether agree that it applies to the content. The hon. Gentleman said, correctly, that the people of Northern Ireland could not be forced into the Irish Republic. If there were an attempt to do that, there would undoubtedly be a civil war, the outcome of which no one in this House today would dare to foresee.
Nevertheless, the Province of Northern Ireland is a nervous community. It is full of suspicion, and my right hon. Friend, when he made his tour of inquiry into whether it was desired to retain the border poll in the text of the Bill, was no doubt subjected to various expressions of suspicion as to what might be intended. Therefore, he was right when he said that he desired to give confidence.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) mentioned the important arid, on the whole, constructive speech by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. I had the privilege

of hearing that speech at the 1900 Club last night. We were very glad to hear from him that, whatever might be said amongst a small minority in this House, whatever might be said by a group of propagandists now conducting advertisements and distributing leaflets intended to shake the confidence of Her Majesty's forces in Northern Ireland by urging that they should be brought home, although they are in fact at home in Northern Ireland, since it is part of the United Kingdom—I hope that my right hon. Friend is in touch with the Law Officers about this in order that the traitorous propagandists can be dealt with under the law—he considers it to be in the best interest of the whole of Ireland that Her Majesty's forces should continue to do their duty as they are so splendidly doing at the present time.
Also—although my hon. and gallant Friend did not refer to this—I attach considerable importance to what the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic said about the undesirability of trying to chip bits off Northern Ireland. I thought that that statement was very important and one to which we should also direct our attention.
Of course, we have not yet quite got to the position where the Government in Dublin have felt able to recognise the fact that the sovereignty of the Republic, whatever it may say in its constitution, does not extend throughout the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas. They have not yet been able to get to the position of the tripartite agreement of 1925, when the Irish Free State recognised the border as it was then, and as it is now, and solemnly deposited that agreement with the League of Nations.
It is interesting that the Irish Parliament passed an amendment which some people in the North welcomed, but I feel that it passed the wrong amendment. It removed from the constitution the statement of fact that the Catholic religion is the religion of most Irishmen, which is patently true, but left in something that is patently untrue—that the sovereignty of the Dublin Government extends throughout Ireland. So I think we do still need assurances, additional safeguards, a reinforcement of the Northern Ireland position within the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) said, correctly, that, whatever we do, however we legislate, we cannot bind our successors. That was true, presumably, of the Labour Government when they enacted the 1949 Act which stipulated that there would be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. We know what is happening to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. This, however, does not mean that we should not do our best to give the people of Northern Ireland reassurance in the hope that responsibility will be shown in successive Governments and successive Parliaments.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South said that he was not against plebiscites in principle, but, of course, Clause 1 is really a matter of principle. As my right hon. Friend said, there is nothing mandatory about it. There has not got to be another border poll. It is not the only way to ascertain the wishes of the people, as the hon. Member for lichen said, but it is some comfort to some people in Northern Ireland to know that a border poll would be a necessary precondition for any attempt to transfer them from their present allegiance.
My right hon. Friend said that it would be a matter for this House whether or not a border poll should be held. This brings one to the position of the Assembly in the matter and to Amendment No. 2. My right hon. Friend does not like the amendment. Yet I think we should be thinking in terms, if the Bill means anything, of a progressive devolution of functions to the Assembly—in terms of making the Assembly a reality.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South spoke of the changed circumstances since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave his pledge about a series of border polls. Of course the circumstances have changed. I am not in favour of a series of border polls. I would not particularly mind if there were never another border poll. In Committee I urged that 10 years was too short an interval and tabled an amendment that it should be 25 years, once in a generation being enough. On the main issue, I urge the House to leave this measure of insurance and reassurance in the Bill.

Mr. R. T. Paget: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) indicated some anxiety as to whether I would support him in the Lobby this afternoon. I assure him that he need have none. I have not the slightest reluctance to vote against the Government on any part of their Irish policy.
From the very beginning I thought that the appointment of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was a folly and that the Government's policy was a folly. But, unfortunately, it has had the consent of both parties and so, as the bombs have gone on going off and the victims of murder have gone on falling, the same policy is persisted in, dragging the two parties along with it. It is extraordinary that the only policies which will ever succeed in uniting and holding together the great parties are policies of folly. Once the two parties get committed to a folly, there is no parting them from it. This happened with the parity of sterling. The parties were committed to their folly and neither could confess to it. So we went on with the two parties acting together until we became a second-rate European industrial power.

5.0 p.m.

There has been this same consensus of the parties on Rhodesia. We have soldiered on with sanctions, imposing suffering on black Rhodesia and imposing handicaps on our own industry while everybody else ignored sanctions. But the two parties were united. So they are here, and on we go the bombs fall and the people die.

If the two parties agree on a successful policy, they part in no time, there is competition and jealousy at work. The dismal process of following on a folly goes on and on. That is where one begins to find the irreplaceable Minister. There is no problem in replacing a Minister whose policies are successful, but once a policy becomes thoroughly unsuccessful the ethos of "dear old Willy" becomes a camouflage for that failure. So this unhappy process has to go meandering along.

The Secretary of State has now had three elections which have given him the same sad sectarian answer that he should have known in the first place. There is no political answer here, and we have all


known this. There is no more a political answer in Ulster between Protestant and Catholic than there is a political answer in Cyprus between Turk and Greek. Divisions of this sort are susceptible to order but are not susceptible to a political answer. Coalitions of people fundamentally opposed to each other on every issue do not work. That kind of government is the government of folly. Three times has the Secretary of State had the answer, and the bombs go on falling and the morale of the Army begins to disintegrate. I shall be dealing with that at length on Thursday and I will not go into it now.

There is a solution of order. The IRA could be crushed in six weeks if the Army's hands were freed. The Army has been prevented from crushing the IRA, and every man in the Army who is serving there knows it. We do not want these fancy solutions. We want a period of martial law in which the Army in Ireland can restore order and destroy the guerrillas and rebels. They can do it in a very short time. Then we want to consider a method of governing Ireland, and it will not be by a coalition of irreconcilables.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—as he often does—has given the House a profound observation not unlaced with paradox about the peculiar danger in which we are liable to find ourselves when both sides of the House almost unanimously concur in a mistaken policy. I have no regrets that both in March 1972 and in 1973 I—with a few others—expressed my fundamental doubts and difficulties about the course of action which was taken then and is being taken now.
Nevertheless, we have still to address our minds to what is going into Clause 1. We still have to decide whether it is wise and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland that the reference to a plebiscite should remain in the Bill. I was disappointed to hear the outcome of the consultations and reflections of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has concluded—and it is no part of my business or purpose to try to alter his conclusions—that he personally is in honour bound to include in the Bill a reference to the plebiscitary method of securing consent.

Mr. Whitelaw: On a point of fact, my right hon. Friend said that I personally told him that I was pledged. I did not say that, but I believe that Her Majesty's Government are pledged. I said that I would look to my own words. I did not find myself so pledged personally, but I believe that Her Majesty's Government are so pledged and that the people believe that the Government are so pledged.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I will correct what I said by saying that my right hon. Friend had personally come to the conclusion that there was an obligation by which he felt himself and his colleagues to be bound that there should be a reference included in the Bill to the plebiscitary ascertainment of consent. Whether or not any of us on either side of the House may find it difficult from the record to follow my right hon. Friend's reasoning and to share his conviction, that is a fact, and it is a fact from which none of us would expect or wish him to depart.
Nevertheless, the House is still faced with the duty of legislation; and the conclusion to which my right hon. Friend has come is all the more to be regretted because, from the fact that he undertook the investigation, it is clear that he was strongly impressed by the potential advantages of the amendment. So, irrespective of any commitment made or believed to have been made by the Government, the House must consider whether the Bill is better and more in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland with or without this provision.
In that respect I believe that the voice of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) in this debate is the voice of wisdom. This is not an optional provision. A glance at Schedule 1 might lead to the mistaken conclusion that the schedule merely provided machinery which could or could not be used as desired at some future date; but the schedule is attracted by Clause 1, and it is right that the House should attend carefully to precisely what Clause 1 says, because there is still considerable misunderstanding about that, and we may be sure that the wording of the clause will be examined and re-examined with all possible attention in Northern Ireland as well as elsewhere in the coming months.
The clause does not say that Northern Ireland shall not cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions without the consent of the majority and without a vote in a plebiscite. Nor does it say that it shall not cease without the consent of the majority, and, by the way, it might be convenient if a poll were held as part of the method of ascertaining consent. The clause says precisely—and this is the only guarantee the Bill gives to the majority in Northern Ireland—that Northern Ireland shall not cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions without the consent of the majority as ascertained by a poll. Therefore, so far as the wording of the provision goes at present, if a plebiscite is held and there is a majority in that plebiscite for the separation of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, then, in terms of the wording of the clause and the pledge which we imagine we are embodying in the Bill, that is the end of the matter.
From the point of view of the majority in Northern Ireland, the addition of these words represents a great weakening of whatever safeguard such a section as this can provide. Not only does it weaken the safeguard by limiting it to a particular form of mathematical majority consent ascertained in one defined way only, but for the future it limits—or purports to limit—the opportunities of the House to exerise its ultimate responsibility in relation to the affairs of Northern Ireland.
In the last resort the interpreter of consent, the interpreter of majority, the interpreter of the future of Northern Ireland, the interpreter of pledges in regard to Northern Ireland, is this House, in its wisdom or unwisdom, at some future period of time. We merely cause misunderstanding, we merely give the appearance without the reality of security, and we limit the possibilities of flexibility in the future for ourselves and our successors by the form of words which at present is in this provision. Nothing is to be gained, nothing is rendered available which would otherwise be unavailable, by the inclusion of these words, but much could be lost by the unnatural concentration of the present wording on one subsidiary, and in no case decisive, test of the majority.
Therefore, I hope the House as a whole will follow not the course to which my

right hon. Friend, regrettably, has concluded that he and his colleagues in Government are bound but the course which I believe he in his heart, if he did not think he was so bound——

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) must not put that into my mouth. I would not accept that argument.

Mr. Powell: I do not wish to use this as a cogent consideration. Nevertheless, the House recalls that my right hon. Friend, having heard the previous debate, set out to see whether there was any impediment to doing what Amendment No. 1 would do. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not have taken that course of action if he had believed that inherently the proposal embodied in the amendment was unwise. He is man enough to argue against an amendment on its merits without seeking to ascertain whether there is some impediment to its acceptance.
I believe that on both sides of the House there is a recognition that, since we are here making a constitution for Northern Ireland, we should use our best endeavours to see that the wording we use is as wise, as little open to misunderstanding, and as little restrictive as we can make it. That course of action would lead to the acceptance of this amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall be brief since the arguments on the amendment have been well rehearsed in previous debates.
I wish to take up one point raised by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who seemed to suggest that nobody in Parliament or outside among the general public should question the continued presence of United Kingdom forces in Northern Ireland. He gave the impression that in some way such an attitude verged on the commission of sedition against the Queen and the constitution of this country. That suggestion is absolute rubbish, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. It is part of the democratic duty of this Parliament and the democratic right of the people of this country to call in question the policies of the Government of the day and to express alternative policies.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised this matter, because there is a misunderstanding in his mind. I was not referring to the rights of this House to question or pronounce on the deployment of Her Majesty's forces. I was referring to an organised agitation outside this House which I have drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and which is conducting advertising and mounting a propaganda campaign directed against the morale of Her Majesty's forces. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be at one with me in condemning that sort of activity.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am quite certain that the British Army will continue to discharge its duty and obey the orders of whatever Government may be in power in this country. however mistaken the policies of that Government might be. I have no doubt about the loyalty of the Army. I do not believe that a few people who believe deeply and passionately that the Government are mistaken in their policy should be the object of the sort of comments made by the hon. Member for Chigwell.
I do not take seriously the charge made by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) about the responsibility on the part of myself and those who take my view. Being a Member of this House carries with it privileges and pleasures, but it also involves the duty to speak out and to reflect the views held by hundreds, thousands and, indeed, possibly millions of one's fellow citizens throughout the country. Therefore, I make no apology whatever for the views I express in this House. I completely reject the allegation that I am in any way seeking to undermine the British forces in the field or suggesting that they are acting in an irresponsible manner. It is a matter of parliamentary debate that these views should be expressed, however unpopular they may be in some quarters of this House and in some parts of the United Kingdom as at present defined.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I am glad that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has explained his view. But has he not also a duty to those who may be the

victims of violence in Northern Ireland? Since Members of Parliament have such a duty, should the hon. Gentleman not take great care to avoid saying anything which may perpetuate and even extenuate the struggle that is taking place in Northern Ireland at the moment?

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the hon. Gentleman believes that any hon. Member in this House would make a speech on a subject in which people's lives are involved without having carefully considered all the factors, and without having considered the situation in Northern Ireland, whether it be from a Protestant or a Catholic point of view, he will believe anything. But this must not make us flinch from our duty of giving voice to the feelings of very many people in Britain in advancing an alternative policy to that which is being pursued by the present Government, with the consent of the Opposition.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) brought to bear on this subject a wealth of knowledge, understanding and, indeed, compassion for the suffering in Northern Ireland. He said that we must be concerned with consent, and I should like to say how much I agree with him. But whose consent are we to be concerned with in defining the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland? We should be concerned with the consent of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole and concerned with the consent of the people of Ireland as a whole.
We must bear in mind that Northern Ireland, in the context of the United Kingdom, is a minority. Northern Ireland, in the context of Ireland, is a minority. When we speak of consent we must mean the consent of the majority of our people, and, if it is in an Irish setting, the majority of the people of Ireland as a whole.
I repeat what I said in my intervention to the hon. Gentleman. If the Government were to dare to put their policy an the future of Northern Ireland to a plebiscite of the British people an overwhelming majority would say that this was a mistaken policy, and that the real policy would be to end that link. Let those hon. Members who say "no", join with me this far in saying to the Government that they should put it to the test of the British people. Let us not sit here in the


mistaken belief that on this issue we represent the views of our constituents. Let us put it to the test. Those who say I am wrong should join me in demanding this course.

Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend not merely saying that we ought to pull out of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Wellbeloved: No. I fully understand the deep and continuing concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) in this matter. We have had many discussions on the subject. I am saying that there can be no settlement, no hope of a settlement, or of the ending of the agony in Northern Ireland which is created and designed by Britain. A solution of that agony and the final overcoming of all the difficulties can only come from within Northern Ireland, by an understanding by the people of Northern Ireland of the realities of the situation.
I say again: let the Government, when they talk of consent, and let my hon. and my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, when they talk of consent, make it clear that they are not talking of the consent of the majority of our people, but of a minority in Irish terms and a minority in United Kingdom terms. I believe that the pledge, whether it is amended or unamended, is the stumbling block upon which the whole edifice of the constitutional Bill and the White Paper is going to crumble because it is a complete fraud on the minority. While that guarantee is there the minority are given hope without the slightest chance of fulfilment.
The elections to the Assembly have already shown that there is a built-in majority, though it be split and fragmented at present, but it is a built-in majority which will never voluntarily as far as we can foresee agree to the reunification of Ireland. Whatever is in the clause and the Bill it is a fraud upon the minority in Northern Ireland.
"The most serious aspect of the whole pledge is that it is the prop on which the majority will for ever lean while it is available to them. It is the blockage, because while it is there it will stop meaningful dialogue taking place between

the two sections of Northern Ireland which might, in the end, lead to some better solution.
I join my hon. Friends in this. I entirely share their view that it is not possible for Northern Ireland to be forcibly united with the Republic. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South put it in words so clear and simple when he said that that would be over the dead bodies of a very substantial number of citizens in Northern Irleand. Indeed, it would. Therefore, any dreams about forcible unification are no more than dreams, and no one, least of all myself, is advocating a policy based upon unification.
I advocate a policy of confronting the people of Northern Ireland as a whole with the realities. To do that it will be necessary to take away the prop of the pledge or guarantee that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom. In my view, the people of Northern Ireland must be confronted with the absolute necessity to reach a working agreement with those who share that troubled island with them. That may mean that as a first step, following the elections to the Assembly, we may have to consider a transfer of power to that Assembly or its successor; in other words, a transfer of power to an independent State. That is what I believe to be the reality of the situation.
I read the speech of the Prime Minister of the Republic, Mr. Cosgrave. He introduced the all-Ireland dimension. For the first time in the history of the Republic its Prime Minister has agreed to and supported the presence of British troops on the soil of any part of Ireland. I assume that is what he means by the "all-Ireland dimension". However, if Mr. Cosgrave wants to make a meaningful contribution to the settlement of the tragedy being enacted again in Northern Ireland, in my view he would do well to start with the constitution of his own country, removing that part which is based upon 32 counties and recognising the reality. He could also seal off the border and stop people from the South infiltrating into the North. I do not take kindly to the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland suddenly coming forward in this way without backing what he says with positive action in his own country.
I do not believe that this clause, amended or unamended, has the support of the people of this country. We, the British, in the course of our long and tragic history have tried in Northern Ireland every conceivable solution—partition, starvation, murder, plunder, burning; the lot. Now we are re-enacting the very tragedy upon which we have stumbled and upon which Ireland has stumbled in the past—this nonsense, this pledge, this guarantee. It cannot work in the long run. Only the Irish in Northern Ireland can solve their own destiny. I believe that they can best do that without the prop of the guarantee and with their own independent State.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I suspect that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is in reality an English Nationalist. All that I say to him is that the policy which he puts forward is, in my view, a total recipe for disaster. We shall not solve anything in Northern Ireland by adopting a Pontius Pilate approach and totally washing our hands of it. I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great personal regard, that people give very much greater significance to his words from the Opposition benches than perhaps they deserve in the context of the Labour Party. They create fears and they encourage the men of violence. Certainly they do nothing to help in the climate of the problems with which those who live in Northern Ireland have to deal.
I wish to return for a moment to our proceedings in Committee when we discussed this matter. On that occasion I found myself in a very lonely position. It is one to which I am accustomed. I saw the Labour Party, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I suspect all for rather different motives, attempting to pin down my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this matter. I became anxious when there was just the hint of a wobble in the speech of the Secretary of State. It was very slight. My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and I found ourselves in a minority of two. But I am

glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not wobbled further and has decided to keep the clause as it is.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said that the people of Northern Ireland would not be forced out of the United Kingdom. I agree with him. But the people of Northern Ireland are frightened and apprehensive. They want to get the best safeguard they can. I accept the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that this is by no means a complete safeguard. Nevertheless, it is the best safeguard that we can envisage.
We have to look at what is the best mechanism for determining the criteria in Clause 1. We can look at many different ideas. But, as I said when we debated this matter before, my view is that the voice of the people of Northern Ireland heard directly in a poll is the best mechanism. For that reason I think it should be maintained. It is a very important safeguard, and I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about keeping it. I had some doubts, which I expressed on that earlier occasion, about whether a poll every 10 years was desirable. I doubt whether it is desirable. Therefore, the reference to the words "not earlier than ten years" is important, and it is to be hoped that the possibility of maintaining a very considerable degree of flexibility will be used wisely.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stood firm and decided to retain the clause. I shall support him in the Division Lobby.
Mr. Lawson: I find myself in a rather uncomfortable position. I am not at all happy about the line being taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. I had hoped that we should be able to deal with these matters concerning Northern Ireland without any major divisions. In fact, I take it that this is not a major division. I hope that it is only a machinery division.
Principally, I am unhappy about the views just expressed by my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). However, I shall return to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Looking at the amendment and at the Bill as it is drafted, my immediate reaction is that I hold no brief for referenda. I was opposed to the approach of my own party to the possibility of a referendum being held on Britain's entry into the Common Market. From the point of view of principle, I might be said to be against this present proposal. But I look at it from the standpoint that it is already enunciated in the Bill. It has been said. It must be widely appreciated in Northern Ireland that it is a guarantee. It guarantees the guarantee, the guarantee being that without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland these changes will not be made. This is because of the great doubt which has grown up—this feeling of uncertainty, this feeling of betrayal and the rest of it. That is why the guarantee is guaranteed in this way by the undertaking that it will not be done without the consent of the people voiced in this way—not even if the Assembly of Northern Ireland decides that it shall be so. That is why I see it as a guarantee of a guarantee.
As I say, it is there. If it were to be taken away it could augment the doubt and fire up these feelings which are so clearly manifest in Northern Ireland. If it had not been there, I should have been quite happy. But it is there, and we cannot take it out without causing a great deal of unrest. For that reason I hope it remains in the Bill.
I now say a word or two to my hon. and very dear Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that my hon. Friend is an English Nationalist. He is intensely English. It may be that he is expressing what has come to be known as the "gut" reaction of ordinary people in England. I accept that. It is an easily understood gut reaction. My hon. Friend expresses it, just as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) does. It is the same sort of thing. What it is saying to the people of Northern Ireland is "It is your business. We have done this for you. We have also done this to you. Get on with it now and settle it yourselves." I believe that that is the feeling. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and

Crayford likes to dress it up in terms of the will of the people of the United Kingdom in deciding this. But if my hon. Friend is honest with himself I am sure he will agree that he thinks that he knows what the people would decide. What he thinks they would decide would be "Let us wash our hands of it and pull out, and let them settle it for themselves." That is what he thinks he knows.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sorry that I was not clear enough for my hon. Friend to understand me completely. I was saying that we have tried everything in Northern Ireland and have failed. We are now merely re-enacting one of our past failures. It is time for a new look, and the new look entails setting the date for the withdrawal of British troops and transferring power to an independent Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lawson: It cannot be done that way, although that may be very attractive. Whether or not we like it, we cannot wash our hands of this question. I ask hon. Members to think of the number of people in England, for example, of Irish extraction, although not necessarily of Roman Catholic persuasion. The Orange persuasion is very powerful in this country. One should look at the number of names, on both sides of the House, which appear to be an indication of the population mix and are clearly of Irish extraction. That applies throughout England. They are very reasonable people. But, on the basis of their roots and with the emotions that can be engendered, they can become very unreasonable in certain circumstances.
None of us can say that he is incapable of the most unreasonable and brutal behaviour in particular circumstances, although he would like to think so. If anyone said that, I should feel that he failed properly to understand human nature. England is not populated by the purely English. It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford has a large proportion of Irish blood in his veins. That may be true of many of us. What I have said may be true of England is certainly true of Scotland.
One feature about which we should he concerned but pleased is that over the years we in Scotland have come to


regard the differences that are sometimes described as trifles as matters that we can live with. We can be excellent colleagues, working with others and paying no attention to differences. But the roots of division exist. If the matter of Northern Ireland were to catch flame, one could not say what would happen. The whole of Scotland and England is, in greater or less degree, intermingled with this problem. It could be the same in Wales, although I know less about Wales than about Scotland. We have a very prominent right hon. Member who speaks for a very important constituency in Wales, and more than one prominent hon. Member has a very Irish name. Others may have close connections in this matter.
We have not an Irish problem or a Northern Ireland problem in the sense that it is something of which we can wash our hands. This is shot through all of us. We are intermingled. We cannot disentangle ourselves and rid ourselves of the separation. If we are to achieve a society the people of which can live amicably together we must overcome this problem.
I see no sudden answer to the problem and no easy way out. I can only think of patience and tolerance, even in the face of behaviour that would almost break the spirit of anyone. If we give way to that, however, we are simply saying that we cannot solve the problem.
This problem has grown up over hundreds of years. To expect to answer it in a few months is to expect too much. But we are on the right road in our efforts to answer it. I can see no other way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford does not really mean what he says. He is carried away with his emotions at present, but in his saner moments he recognises that it is a dangerous line. I hope that he will take the opportunity to repudiate it.
Because the words are already in the Bill and because it could be injurious to withdraw the troops, the Opposition Chief Whip will excuse me when I say that, although I shall not vote with the Government, I cannot join my hon. Friends in the Lobby on this question.

Mr. McMaster: I have some sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the

hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). His contribution to the debate and all the contributions during the past three or four weeks, when the subject has been before the House, illustrate how an understanding which was not present one or two years ago is now coming to hon. Members who have a more realistic approach to the problems of Northern Ireland and together are getting down to work and facing the root cause of the trouble there.
The Opposition's amendment is the amendment that attracts me most. I also support the wording of Amendment No. 2, which is not inconsistent with the Opposition's amendment. The point of these amendments is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, that one must study very carefully the wording of the clause. As a lawyer I do not like to see too tightly defined the basis on which the constitution of this country is determined. We have always been proud of the fact that this country has an unwritten constitution. It is with no apology that I say "this country", because today we are legislating for something that concerns a part of the United Kingdom and the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, if this is done in statutory form it concerns part of the constitution of this country.
In such a serious clause, perhaps the fundamental clause of the Bill, is it right that we should go into the tiny details that we do? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that 10 years is a minimum period. It need not necessarily be the 10 years set out in Schedule 1, to which the clause refers. However, to make any provision for periodic polls is unsettling in the circumstances of Nor-them Ireland. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have stated many times in the House that the Government's aim is to get the border out of politics. I feel that this provision is counter-productive. Nothing is more designed to keep the border in politics than provision for regular periodic polls on the constitutional question. Therefore, basically I should prefer to see the provision omitted altogether—simply to say "No change in the constitution of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority".

5.45 p.m.

As other hon. Members have said in the debate, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), we are faced with a situation where a neighbouring, independent country—namely, the Republic of Southern Ireland—has written into its constitution that its constitution applies to part of the United Kingdom. While this is the case, it is right that we should have Clause 1, that is up as far as the words "Northern Ireland" in line 13, written into the Bill, forming part of the constitution of the United Kingdom as it relates to Northern Ireland, in that way contradicting the statement in the constitution of Southern Ireland, which is, frankly, an impertinence to the people of Northern Ireland.

On that topic, I am not too happy about the meeting between the Prime Minister and the leader in Southern Ireland immediately following the poll. I admit the right of my right hon. Friend to meet the Taoiseach but I should have preferred the meeting to be held before the election or perhaps in a month or two, but not a few days after the Assembly election when it was obviously so much in the forefront of people's minds. If, as my right hon. Friend said, he felt that the border issue should be taken out of politics in Northern Ireland, why should he meet the leader of a foreign country immediately after an Assembly election?

It is no concern of the Taoiseach how Northern Ireland shall be governed. I refer to this meeting because it has already been mentioned by hon. Members opposite. Therefore, I feel that if the provision was left, ending with "Northern Ireland" in line 13, it would greatly strengthen the position in Northern Ireland.

Many people are concerned also about a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) earlier in the debate—the movement of people across the border into Northern Ireland. It was the hon. Gentleman who referred to the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. He said that he wished Southern Ireland would do something to stop that movement over the border. Now that we are both mem-

bers of the Common Market, I wonder how long it will be possible to stop that movement. It is a matter of concern in Northern Ireland, along with the fact that the birth rate of the Roman Catholic minority in Northern Ireland is known to be rising more rapidly than the birth rate of the Protestant majority.

One of the most unfortunate factors—many people try to run away from it—is that the Roman Catholic minority is generally equated with the Republicans in the present Ulster situation. I feel this is wrong. In my own constituency, many Roman Catholics support the present constitutional position in Northern Ireland, but there are others who feel that they speak for all their co-religionists and that all of them, to a man, are Republican. They support the party of the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—the SDLP—which had considerable successes in the Assembly elections, and which stands for the creation of a republic in Northern Ireland and purports to speak for all its Catholic population. This is a matter of concern and one which in time might lead to a demand for a poll in Northern Ireland because of the increase in the population. I believe this to be erroneous, but it would lead to a demand for a poll.

It is because this change in the balance of population would lead to such a demand that it is unsettling in Northern Ireland and could lead to a recurrence of the violence that we see at the moment. Therefore, to write into the Bill a provision which keeps people's attention on the balances of population in Northern Ireland is counter-productive, and I should like to see it dropped.

I would accept the wording of the amendment requiring a two-thirds majority in place of any reference to a periodic poll. I would even accept—there was an amendment to this effect in Committee—that the period should be 20 or 25 years, which would be less unsettling than 10 years. But on the whole I should prefer all reference to a poll omitted, because I am convinced that it will lead only to a perpetuation of the violence that we have suffered in the last 10 years.

Mr. Dick Douglas: It is tempting to follow not only the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) but some


other hon. Members who have spoken, but I shall try to resist the temptation—with one or two exceptions.
The major exception will be my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). He based the argument for his amendment primarily on a piece of machinery, and the second position that he took up was to relate that machinery to paragraph 112 of the White Paper, which broadly dealt with an Irish dimension. If the future of an Irish dimension depends on the elimination of this piece of machinery from the Bill, its future is shaky indeed.
The Secretary of State made great play with the speech that he made in Committee, when he said he would consult parties in Northern Ireland. This party, of which I am a proud member, and have been for more years than I care to remember, has an associated party in Northern Ireland. I want to know from our Front Bench what consultations took place between this party and the Northern Ireland Labour Party and what was the reply. I will give way to any of my right hon. or hon. Friends who wish to interrupt me.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I made it abundantly clear that I have not consulted anyone other than Members of the British House of Commons.

Mr. Douglas: That is indeed unfortunate, because I understand that the Northern Ireland Labour Party has had some discussions and may have views on this issue.

Mr. Stanley Orme: No.

Mr. Douglas: It is a matter of dispute. If my hon. Friends give me their word, I accept it unhesitatingly, but I have it on good authority that representations were made on this issue by the Northern Ireland Labour Party to this party.
I have in my hand a copy of a statement that I took down by telephone from the only member of the Northern Ireland Labour Party elected to the new Assembly—a good and honourable man who now, I think, bears the title of Leader of the Northern Ireland Labour Party. It is vital that this go into the record.
Mr. David Bleakley said:
Any attempt to remove the referendum guarantee from the Northern Ireland Bill will

be a betrayal of solemn pledges given to the people of Northern Ireland. Into the bargain, the timing of this betrayal could not be more unfortunate. It comes at the very moment when politicians in Northern Ireland are trying desperately to assure their people that Westminster can be trusted to keep its word. As an example of English insensitivity"—
the words are Mr. Bleakley's, not mine—
to Irish affairs, this move has rarely been equalled. The referendum has the support of the great majority of the Northern Irish people. Politicians in the luxurious calm of Westminster should think twice before disregarding such a basic fact of Ulster political life.

Mr. Rees: Let us be clear. It may be insensitivity, but I hope that in the course of my argument I made it clear that in no sense was the pledge about putting the North into the South to be altered. Indeed, I argued that the fact that a pledge was even needed weakened the force of the logic of the fact of life. My hon. Friend seems to have a view about insensitivity, but I fervently deny the other part of his argument.

Mr. Douglas: The argument on this issue is not mine. I am quoting the words of the Leader of the Northern Ireland Labour Party. Either these words have persuasive influence on this side of the House or they have not. It is indeed remiss of this party of mine, which was party to the delegation that went to Northern Ireland and knew that this amendment would be moved from this side—an amendment not only relating to machinery but on which we would seek to place a three-line Whip—not to consult our major responsible party in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: My hon. Friend mentions that his friend, Mr. David Bleakley, accuses the British Labour Party of going back on its word by not insisting on the mention of a poll in the Bill. Would he ask his friend David Bleakley when the British Labour Party ever even mentioned referenda in Northern Ireland? It never did, in my knowledge.

Mr. Douglas: That is acceptable that is a very good point—

Mr. Delargy: But it is his whole case.

Mr. Douglas: One at a time. His case is not that the British Labour Party—[Interruption.] The case is that it was a pledge. I am not concerned with


whether the Government made the pledge or not; I am concerned about the effect on Northern Ireland of an attempt to remove this from the Bill, because it is a symbol of a guarantee that should be re-emphasised.
I am not in favour of referenda, and I am on record in previous debates as having said so, but this party of mine happens to be in favour of referenda when it suits it——

Mr. Orme: This is an interesting argument. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members opposite seem to be enjoying it, but this is a serious point. Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Northern Ireland Labour Party met my hon. Friend and me and the Leader of the Opposition at the time of the first border poll they were opposed to that poll?

Mr. Douglas: I do not want to bandy words—[Interruption.] I am accused here. I have a document here dated 7th November 1972 from the Northern Ireland Labour Party, in which it asks not only for a border poll but for repeated referenda. I will pass it down to my hon. Friend if he wants to read it. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether we in this House at this time should seek to remove that guarantee of a guarantee.

6.0 p.m.

The logic of the argument of my hon. Friends is to remove the whole clause. No doubt some of my hon. Friends, such as the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) and the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), would wish to do that. We are dealing with symbols in Northern Ireland. I visited Northern Ireland last week to watch the election, and what influenced me was the position of women there. There are only three women among the 78 members of the Assembly. The women, unfortunately, are much more articulate than the men in Northern Ireland. Yet the only time that they can articulate their preferences is during an election.

One lady going to the polling booth said to me, happily and cheerfully, "Do you think this is the last time I shall have to vote this year, having been engaged in three elections?" This is the only way,

in our present electoral procedure, for women to state their preferences in Northern Ireland. In view of the shaky position in Northern Ireland I believe that this provision should remain in the Bill.

What do my hon. Friends hope to gain by taking it out? There is no fixed idea for a plebescite in 10 years' time, but there is a feeling at present that the word of Her Majesty's Government is at stake along with the question of the sensitivity of Westminster politicians.

On occasions my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford wears the mantle of an Alf Garnett with hair. He puts forward a simplistic argument which says, in effect, that we may decide some time in the future to allow Ulster to declare UDI. There are two tragedies that could befall us. One is to allow Ulster to declare UDI, and we would have little control over it, and the other is for us to precipitate a situation in which we would withdraw our troops by a pre-determined date.

I come from a small part of Scotland. Many deaths and injuries have been sustained in Northern Ireland by troops who come from that part of Scotland. I do not think that any of the families in my constituency find pleasure in having their sons and husbands in Northern Ireland. Those who have suffered these tragedies recognise that if we do not sustain our will we fail. What is at stake in Northern Ireland is not just the survival of a particular form of democracy.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and I have nothing in common. I deplore the fact that members of my class support his party, but recognise that on occasions we share a democratic form of procedures and agree to differ in a constitutional setting. This is what is at stake in Northern Ireland. If we withdraw our troops and our ability to combat urban guerrilla warfare we fail not only in Northern Ireland but we fail in the United Kingdom.

It is difficult to sustain our will power to succeed, and it is not given sustenance by speeches such as those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and others. The effect is seemingly to undermine our will power to succeed against this violence in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Would my hon. Friend like to put to the test the opinion in his constituency and mine by having a pilot poll on this question so that at least we would have some indication of whether he or I is speaking with the true voice of the majority of the British people?

Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend presents this as if it were a panacea. The rôle of leaders in a democracy is to lead, not just in the short term, but to bear in mind the long-term implications of what might happen if what my hon. Friend desires were to come about. It is not where a person stands at one point of time but how he stands for the future that counts. That is where leadership in a democracy comes into play. If we succeed in Northern Ireland we give sustenance to democratic institutions all over the United Kingdom, perhaps all over the world.
I am sorry that I have taken up so much of the time of the House and also that, because of a lack of attention to this subject on my part over the past few weeks perhaps, I part company with my party tonight on this subject. I cannot support it in the Lobby——

Mr. J. D. Concannon: We know.

Mr. Douglas: I have been very plain, I have been sincere and above-board, and I hope there will be no acrimony about that.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) is engaged in two separate arguments with his hon. Friends, and I will not intervene, although I wholly endorse his concluding remarks which he addressed to his hon. Friend just below the Gangway.
Various interpretations have been put on the importance of this clause. The importance of Clause 1 is that fundamentally we are dealing with a minority within a minority. That is the most difficult situation for which it is possible to legislate.
In Northern Ireland the Catholics are in a minority and in Ireland as a whole the Protestants are in a minority. It is extraordinarily difficult to draft legislation which can bring a sufficient degree of confidence to both minorities. I would hesitate in the context of the

future, and new events which have begun in Northern Ireland, to place too much importance on Clause 1 with or without the amendment. I fully accept the value placed upon the concluding part of the clause in Northern Ireland and the reaction that there would be if it were removed.
I accept what my right hon. Friend has said about ascertaining whether it was felt there that an undertaking had been given by the Government and what the reaction would be if the amendment were carried, but I have a reservation which has not so far been mentioned. The strong argument for the border poll conducted on 8th March was that it was the only way at the time that the will of the people of Northern Ireland could be expressed because, following the events of March a year earlier, they had no Parliament sitting at Stormont.
That argument must have convinced a number of people, because at about the same time the question was being put to some of us, outside the context of Northern Ireland "How is it that you decline to have a referendum on the subject of Britain entering Europe, yet countenance a referendum for the purpose of deciding the border issue in Northern Ireland?" The answer which has been advanced on more than one occasion in this House was that, whereas the people of Northern Ireland were without a Parliament through which to express their will, we had taken our action in respect of Europe through parliamentary democracy as we understand it here.

Mr. Powell: Is my right hon. Friend saying we did so?

Mr. Deedes: It is an argument I have heard advanced, and more than once—that a decision was taken through Parliament and that that was the way we reached decisions of this kind; but that it was denied to the people of Northern Ireland, because they had no Parliament. Within the last few days Northern Ireland has begun to put together an Assembly and over the course of the next few years, certainly before the next poll, it will become the representative body of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, any future poll we are discussing is not quite on all-fours with the poll which occurred on 8th March. I accept that decisions of this kind are best


reached through parliamentary consent. I have always rejected the idea of a referendum in this country and have preferred the argument used in respect of Europe. But if that argument holds good and if the people of Northern Ireland are adamant that they should remain part of the United Kingdom, it seems to me that they might also take into account the value of sharing with us our interpretation of the way in which decisions are reached through parliamentary consent.
What, in effect, is being said is that a future poll would be required because consent could not be sought through any Assembly that Northern Ireland may have now or in 10 years' time. In other words, I do not think that what many desire is on all-fours with our concept of parliamentary democracy. I find it odd that people who insist they are part of the United Kingdom wish to remain part of the United Kingdom; and that, after all, is what the clause is all about.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman must agree that there is a difference between this Parliament and the one we had in Northern Ireland, which was set up. One is sovereign, the other is not.

Mr. Deedes: There may be differences in degree but at the same time, in 10 years—the period that we are talking about—if not less, we hope that the Assembly in Northern Ireland will be at least comparable to the kind of Parliament the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I will not pursue the argument, but it occurs to me that it is worth carrying in mind. The confidence of the majority is absolutely crucial to my right hon. Friend and I agree implicitly in the clause going without amendment. I support what my right hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I had not intended to enter into the debate at this stage because, unfortunately, due to other commitments in Northern Ireland I have not taken part in any stage of the Constitution Bill. But having listened to remarks made on both sides of the House I feel constrained to say something in connection with the amendment that has been moved by my hon. Friends. Needless to say. I fully support them, because in Northern Ireland we

have repeatedly had decisions taken by the majority political party in Northern Ireland. There were, first of all, the original terms of the settlement in 1920 and, secondly, the pledge given by the Attlee Labour Government. We are now trying to do the same thing.
In Northern Ireland such pledges have been taken as being tantamount to support for the Unionist Party there. We have had the border poll. I have listened to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). He has quoted at length a statement from a newly elected member of the Northern Ireland assembly, Mr. David Bleakley, who now calls himself Leader of the Labour Party. It is very easy for him to call himself that, as he is the only elected Labour Party representative; he was elected on the nineteenth or twentieth count in an East Belfast constituency. Mr. Bleakley may claim to speak for the people of Northern Ireland, for the Labour movement in Northern Ireland, the trade union movement in Northern Ireland or the articulate women of Northern Ireland, but it seems to me that he was the only elected representative of his party. I do not believe this House should concern itself unduly with the sentiments of one representative in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
If one looks at the wording of this clause, with its reference to voting in a poll, one must ask whether any serious thought has been given to circumstances which could possibly arise were such a poll taken at any time in the future. What majority would be necessary to change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland? If, for example, a border poll were taken in 10 years' time on the question of sovereignty or the constitutionality of the Northern Ireland Government, and there was a vote of 600,849 for maintenance of the link with Britain and a vote of 600,917 for joining with Ireland—a difference of a matter of just 40 or 50 votes—what would then be the position? Would those who had lost in such a border poll willingly give way to a change in the constitutional position? What would the figures mean? Would those who had been beaten by 20, 30, 40 or 50 votes be prepared to abide by a decision of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland? To me the whole situation would remain absolutely


farcical, because even on the results we have had on the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly—and here I am expressing not my sentiments on the White Paper or the Constitution Bill, though I hope to take an opportunity to do so on Third Reading of the Bill—if one takes the total vote, we have heard from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that at the conclusion of the poll 34 per cent. of the electorate expressed their opposition to the terms of the Constitution Bill and the White Paper; and under democratic terms in this country that would be the losing side. Yet the hon. Member, in association with others in Northern Ireland, says that because 34 per cent, are opposed to the Bill and the White Paper they will seek to wreck it. That is an indication. If there are 34 per cent. against the Constitution Bill and the White Paper and the advocates of opposition to it are saying that, what would he the constitutional position if, at any time in the future, 40, 50, 60, or 400 or 500 people happened to be in a majority?

6.15 p.m.

The concluding words of this clause can only give offence to a certain number of people in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire says if there is no attempt to delete these words they will give offence to the articulate women in Northern Ireland, and that he has met some. They certainly did not articulate their preference when they went to vote at the polling station. They did not take the opportunity they had last week to articulate a preference for the Northern Ireland Labour Party which is so good at sending propaganda to hon. Members of this House. But the inclusion of these words at the end of this clause is giving offence to a considerable section of the minority in Northern Ireland who have expressed their opinion as totally the reverse.

Mr. Lawson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is tragedy indeed that the Labour Party in Northern Ireland, which for so many years has sought to keep sectarianism out, should be reduced to such a low level at the present time as to have only one member in the Assembly?

Mr. Fitt: Perhaps I have more experience of the Labour Party in Northern

Ireland than does my hon. Friend. For many years it was never regarded as a Labour and trade union party—as a party of the workers. Otherwise, it would have had many more elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Parliament. Because it accepted the 1949 Attlee pledge the Labour Party was regarded as a second line of defence for the Unionist Party. That is why it has never secured any support from the working class movement. Why have thousands and thousands of trade union supporters in Northern Ireland, many of them members of trade unions represented by my hon. Friends, voted at election after election for Unionist candidates? They never gave their support to the Labour Party. I agree that it is a tragedy that there was no non-sectarian Labour and trade union movement throughout the sad 50 years of Unionist domination of Northern Ireland.
Neither I nor my colleagues did anything to hinder the development of a legitimately non-sectarian Labour movement. Some people are now claiming to be representatives of the trade union movement with one breath and with their second breath are saying they are leaders of the Loyalist Association of Workers. They give more support to the Loyalist Association of Workers than they ever did to the Labour and trade union movement. That is why any sentiments now coming from the Labour Party in connection with the retention of the clause, with all that it involves, should not be listened to by anyone with any understanding of what is happening in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does my hon. Friend agree with what I have found over the past two years? Although the Protestant working class have voted Unionist over the years, I have always had from the trade union leaders in Northern Ireland—I am sure that the Secretary of State has as well—the greatest support in a non-sectarian way. But they have ended up being the leaders of a non-existent band when it came to putting crosses on a bit of paper. That does not prevent me from giving the highest praise to Mr. Vivian Simpson of the parliamentary party over there, to David Bleakley himself for his work in community relations, and to the trade union movement, which is part of the trade union movement in


the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that in having a go at Protestant workers who have voted Vanguard my hon. Friend will not include the leadership in his condemnation.

Mr. Fitt: I certainly agree that the official trade union movement in Northern Ireland has accepted throughout the years a very difficult rôle. It was not on the advice of its leaders that so many members joined the Loyalist Association of Workers and voted Vanguard Unionist or DUP Unionist. I acknowledge that the trade union movement has had a very difficult rôle, and many of its members are men of great honour and integrity.
I associate myself with my hon. Friend's tribute to Mr. Vivian Simpson, who unfortunately was defeated in the recent contest, not because of any activities of my party but because many people who should have been Labour supporters in the working class constituency of North Belfast voted for extreme Unionist candidates.
The House should think very seriously before passing the clause as it stands. What would the Government do if the situation I have envisaged arose? What majority would be necessary to change the constitutional position in Northern Ireland at any foreseeable time?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a very fair point, and the hon. Gentleman has made his speech fairly. The simple point must be that the change could not be made without the consent of the majority of the people voting in the poll. But if consent was given by a very narrow majority it would clearly be a matter for the House, and no doubt for the Republic. That would be bound to be so. It would not automatically happen. It does not automatically happen. It cannot automatically happen. It would have to be a matter for this House to decide the constitutional change. The poll of itself would not do it.

Captain Orr: I think that my right hon. Friend made a slip of the tongue. He did not intend to imply that the Republic would have a say in the future as to whether Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly not. What I said was that if there was a majority for

a change such as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) suggests, and that meant that the Republic would then be required by the poll to accept the change, it would surely have to be consulted as to whether it wished to do so.

Mr. Fitt: In such a situation, where there was a very small majority for changing the constitutional position and bringing about the entry of the Six Counties into a united Ireland, the Government of the Republic would undoubtedly be involved. There would immediately be a clamour by the people in that part of Ireland that the figures justified their taking action, because the majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted to be united with the rest of the country.
The wording of the clause, stating that the people of Northern Ireland will be given the opportunity to consent by way of poll, is very dangerous. It could bring untold danger not only in the immediate future but at whatever time a poll is taken.

Mr. Maginnis: We have argued at great length about the amendment in Committee and again today. I have reached the conclusion that we are discussing two separate points. The first is about the pledge. I entirely agree, and I think that the majority of hon. Members agree, that it should be kept in the Bill. The second part of the argument is really about whether the pledge should be given the force of law in holding a border poll at a future date. In other words, it concerns the mechanics as set out in Schedule 1.
As the pledge has been given on several occasions, to do away with it entirely, as some hon. Members have suggested, would be a retrograde step. It would lead to great uncertainty in Northern Ireland. But I agree with the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)—and I made the comment in Committee—that I should not be at all worried if we never again had a border poll. The precedent has been set. It was set in the situation in which we found ourselves without a representative Parliament in Northern Ireland, when the only way to find out the wishes of the people was through a separate border poll.
The hon. Member for Chigwell will agree that when we first decided to try to introduce a measure in the House to


change the wording of the 1949 Act from "Parliament" to "people" we were following a very good democratic process. We were not, and we never shall be, a sovereign Parliament of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we cannot take decisions on such matters. The only way is by consulting the people. I am very happy to leave it at that.
The Secretary of State always considers matters seriously. If he does so on this occasion, perhaps we can have a provision somewhere between his suggestion and the amendment. Instead of stopping at the words "Northern Ireland", perhaps we can go on to say "voting in a poll for the purposes of this section." That is all that is required.
I cannot agree with the period of not less than 10 years. I have already said that is much too short. Even 20 years is a short time. The proposed period will lead to uncertainty. Just as the American system of a four-year term of office always leads to uncertainty in business, commerce and so on, so a 10-year period for holding a border poll—although it is not necessary to hold it within 10 years—would always lead to uncertainty.
We must ask "What is a majority?" As the right hon. Gentleman said, the majority would have no effect in dealing with the matter, because in the end it would have to be dealt with by the House.

6.30 p.m.

I suggest that we go ahead and reiterate the pledge that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom and of Her Majesty's Dominions and that that situation will not be changed without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The only way of obtaining that consent is by asking the people of Northern Ireland. Originally I was opposed to the idea behind the amendment, but, having given the matter a lot of consideration, I must now tell the House that I support it. I have had second thoughts, just as my right hon. Friend had second thoughts and consulted the powers that be in Northern Ireland.

The people in Northern Ireland today are in a jittery mood, and we in this Parliament should not do something that

will keep that mood in operation for any length of time. We should be thinking about doing something for the future. We should be thinking whether the people of Northern Ireland will want to hold border polls in the future. If the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland is required on the question whether they want to leave the United Kingdom or join the Irish Republic, there may be a different way of obtaining that opinion from the one envisaged in the Bill.

I suggest that in the end it is better to leave the pledge as it stands. If, at any given time in the future, the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland has to be sought by this House, there will be a precedent for doing so. On many occasions this House acts according to precedent, and we should leave the matter there and not inflict any more uncertainty on the people of Northern Ireland. We should allow the pledge to stand and leave it to the good sense of the people of Northern Ireland to realise that if at any time in the future they require a border poll it will be granted by the House without question.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I listened with great interest to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) today, just as I did on 14th June. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's general view that no Parliament can bind its successors, but that is precisely what we are doing today.
I have travelled to Northern Ireland on many occasions, the last time being only a few days ago, and it is my view that in the present emotion-charged and highly distrustful atmosphere there the House should hesitate before taking a step that would compound that distrust, because that is what I fear may be the consequence of passing the clause unamended.
Secondly, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that by trying to increase certainty this House may find itself in the position of having prolonged it. I ask the House to consider whether that has not been our experience over the last 70 years. The more the House has tried to allay the fears of the people of Northern Ireland, the more it has heightened those fears and prolonged uncertainty.
But even if we were to pursue this plebiscite, any future result which came from it would be sterile unless the groundwork had proceeded, unless we had broadened and deepened that consent, which is such an attractive feature of the White Paper, unless we had pursued the Irish dimension, and unless we had explored the possibility of a Council of Ireland. It may be that at that point the arguments that we have just heard—and in a way again I generally accept them—will come into play.
I was sorry to hear the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), and I hope that they will not mind my putting it that way. I was sorry because, like them, I am a European and because, again like them, I went through great difficulties a couple of years ago. Some people think that the only Member on this side of the House who has faced any difficulty is the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), but some of us faced difficulties elsewhere. However, we were backed by parties that were more sensible and by colleagues who were a good deal more helpful.
One of the pressures that I resisted was for the holding of a referendum. Even though, over my head, a poll was held in my constituency by the local Press which produced a result of 84 per cent. against entry into the EEC, like my hon. Friends, I still said "No" to the referendum. The most compelling argument that I heard against the referendum was given by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire. He will no doubt remember the occasion, and that is why I was sorry, a few moments ago, to witness his departure from the principle.
I understand the position of my hon. Friends. Basically, they would like to preserve their attachment, but they find that they have to depart from it. Heaven knows that the pressures on me could not have been greater than they were two years ago—as they were on one or two others—but I stood firm.

Mr. Lawson: The proposal on which we operate is not that we should vote for the Bill and therefore for a referen-

dum, but that we should abstain and thereby preserve our purity.

Mr. Duffy: I shall not detain the House for very much longer.
The Secretary of State claimed that the poll would remove uncertainty. Hon. Members will have heard the exchanges a few minutes ago between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). They may have got the impression, as I did, that the position is now further confused. Can anyone imagine any circumstances in which such a poll could in the future produce any result that could make the change on anything but a narrow majority? If that were to happen, the House would decide the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to claim that the poll would remove speculation about the border. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Down. South (Captain Orr) that speculation about the border will not be so easily dispersed. It will always be a feature not only of the Assembly but of life in general in Northern Ireland, whilst the border exists.
I suggest that the clause is wholly out of character with the constitutional practice of the House. Moreover, it is out of tune with present developments and the emerging temper. I am reminded of the courageous speech made last night by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic when he praised—as I did when I spoke in the debate on 14th June—the British genius for the pragmatic. Those were almost the words that I used.
Like me, the Prime Minister can see this being expressed by the following up and complementing of the will of the people of Northern Ireland to work out their own new structure, to develop a basic consensus and he asked whether we ought not to avoid
raising abstract, logical or constitutional obstacles
which is what the Secretary of State is doing. When the right hon. Gentleman asks us to accept the clause, he is asking us to set up abstract, logical or constitutional obstacles, and I am glad that on this occasion most of my hon. Friends are saying "No".

Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland put a lot of faith in


the pledge given to them by the Attlee Government in 1949. During the debate on the Temporary Provisions Bill I moved that that pledge should be put into the Bill, which it was, but I say to the House today, as it faces reality, that the people of Northern Ireland have learned that pledges given by this Parliament can be changed by another Parliament, or even by the Parliament which gave them. The only pledge that the people of Northern Ireland have about remaining outside the Irish Republic is the fact that they have a majority opinion which holds to that view. I do not deny that this has not been my view before, but it is my view now that all the pledges given by this House will not allay one fear in anybody's mind. There was a time when I felt that a series of border polls would be helpful to the minority in Northern Ireland, for it would give them an opportunity to express themselves in a matter in which they had national aspirations. I have learned from members of the Opposition that border polls are indeed repugnant, and that the one that was held was effectually boycotted by them. The first border poll should have been held immediately after the imposition of direct rule. It was held much later and it gave the answer of the loyalist people.
May I now deal with the amendment? As a party leader in Northern Ireland I was never consulted about my views on having a border poll, and I believe now that it would be far better not to write such a provision into the Bill. The Bill generally is irrelevant. The House has told the people of Northern. Ireland to speak, they have given their answer, and they have now elected representatives. Every one of those representatives will now speak, and I hope that the British Government will be willing to speak with them to some purpose.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellebeloved) said things that were unpalatable to hon. Members, but perhaps today he alone was facing some of the stern realities of the situation. This House had better face the realities. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) put words into my mouth, and I regret that he is not present at the moment. On a television programme, while the results were coming in, I pointed out that 34 per cent. of the people of Northern

Ireland said that they did not want the British Government's proposals. The hon. Member is on record in this House as saying that he looked upon the Assembly as an elected conference table. The hon. Member's party took some 23 per cent. of the poll. Those two figures add up to 57 per cent. Fifty-seven per cent. of the people therefore have said that we must talk again with the British Government. The British Government would do well to look upon those representatives as the sounding board of opinion in Northern Ireland. They would do well to enter into immediate negotiations with them. The people of Northern Ireland expect their representatives to negotiate for them. There must be a re-think. It is unfortunate that the Government find themselves hooked on the Bill. It would have been better to have had an elected conference table. That is what the people think and it is what I and other hon. Members have said. We went unheeded—voices in the wilderness. Now the House is facing reality.
It makes no difference whether pledges are written into the Bill. The people of Northern Ireland realise that no matter what the pledge may be it can be changed. It can be said that as long as the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want to remain outside the Irish Republic they will do so. I use these words deliberately and carefully. The majority, and the majority alone, can safeguard their position. What the people of Northern Ireland cannot understand—and I fail to understand it, too—is the British Government's saying to us that we must satisfy the majority by giving them a border poll, while saying that there are to be talks between the Westminster Government, the Government of the Republic and the leaders of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to discuss how the three objectives in the paper for discussion may best be pursued.
The first objective is the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland and the possibility, which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent, of subsequent change in that status. But the Government are putting fear into the hearts of people by saying, on the one hand, that there will be no change until a border poll shows it is wanted and, on the other, that they are to hold talks


to try to negotiate a change. To say those two things is blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy. I speak for the largest group in the Assembly when I say that the people are not prepared to discuss the possibility of change in the status of Northern Ireland and that they are not prepared to have any underhand negotiations with the Republic of Ireland.

6.45 p.m.

It should be said—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) did not say it, although I tried to interrupt him; he must have turned his deaf ear to me—that the Prime Minister of the Republic should have no say in the shape or destiny of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, it should be said in all fairness to Mr. Cosgrave that he said that if a negotiated settlement was arrived at that would bring stability to Ulster he would be prepared to back it. I believe that the most constructive thing he has ever said was that there would have to be a negotiated settlement. Over the years this House has interfered in the affairs of Ireland, both North and South, and politicians here have their graveyards in Ireland. I do not believe that any English politician can understand the politics of either Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland.

The people of Northern Ireland have elected an Assembly. Some people thought that the Alliance Party would emerge to a glorious victory and that we would see a wonderful Assembly. The people of Northern Ireland have spoken, and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said that the voice of Northern Ireland should be heard. I trust that this House will listen to it. I appeal to the Government to listen to the elected representatives. Have negotiations with them. Do not stand on ceremony. Let us get down to the hard task of hearing what they have to say, and when they say it let the British Government take note.

There is no need to write into the Bill a provision about the poll, because it is not relevant to the pledge. If that guarantee is to satisfy the people of Ulster—I do not believe that it will—it is better without the reference to the border poll. It is better that it stands on its own legs.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I sympathise with the hon. Mem-

ber for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). I am sorry that he has left the Chamber. To a certain extent I agree with much of what he said, and I can also understand the feelings that he conveyed to the House of the Northern Ireland Labour Party. Not for the first time has that party found itself deserted by some Labour Members here. It will not be difficult for it to pinpoint some of those detractors when the HANSARD report of this debate is published. That applies particularly to the vicious speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
The hon. Member seemed to suggest that the Northern Ireland Labour Party was two-faced in some of its attitudes. That is a dangerous suggestion for the hon. Member to make about anyone, because it is well known and recognised that he appears in London as a Socialist and at home in Belfast as a Republican.
In defence of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), he might be forgiven for feeling a little uncertainty as to whether he should have consulted the Northern Ireland Labour Party about his amendment. There was a great deal of uncertainty, and that uncertainty remained until the last stages of the count, before it was clear that the Northern Ireland Labour Party would have even one member elected. We should exonerate the hon. Member for Leeds, South of any negligence, as it was doubtful whether the Northern Ireland Labour Party would have any members.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) stuck a realistic note but I ask him to consider that there is a compromise between the view that the Army should be taken out and the view that the Army must remain at all costs. I suggest that the middle view is to work towards the simpler solution, of a lessening of the political involvement in Northern Ireland, followed by a reduction in the military involvement.
In plain terms, and in the context of the clause that we are discussing, that must mean giving greater authority to the Assembly and taking heed of what my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said. It means, above all, listening to what the recently and freshly elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland will say. Only by doing that shall we achieve any form of stability.
The very worst thing that can happen is for this Parliament to say, "You were elected, on rules set up and devised by us, to an Assembly that was constructed and designed by us. Now that you have been elected we shall ignore your views and decisions." I trust that this Parliament, with all its wisdom over hundreds of years, will not make that mistake.
I noticed that when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) outlined some of the consequences of irresponsible statements about a review of political and military involvement, several Opposition hon. Members hastened to dissociate themselves from such views. They seemed to be at great pains to claim that such views were very much in the minority in the Opposition. I should like to believe them, and I accept their sincerity, but, with the best will in the world, I find it difficult to believe what they say.
I shall quote briefly what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said in a rather puzzling intervention at an early stage in Committee. It was puzzling, because there did not seem to be any reason for the right hon. Gentleman to make such an intervention. As I said at the time, it was an intervention that I thought would have been very well omitted. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The sovereignty of Westminster means this Bill. It means bringing into Government in Northern Ireland in a real sense and in every way the minority. If there is any departure from that … it should be made known before the election that we shall reconsider our position.
I should think that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North will concede that that statement by the former Home Secretary, who had responsibility for handling Northern Ireland and who cannot plead ignorance, contributed in large measure to his success in his election campaign and the success of his group, in addition to his popularity and political appeal.
We have all appreciated the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made to obtain the views of representatives in Northern Ireland on the amendment. He has properly reported that he has found that there is a majority in favour of retaining provisions for holding plebicites in future. Consequently, he is recommending that

the House should act according to that view. I merely ask that similar regard be paid to majority views on other issues, even if such views conflict with the views of hon. Members in this House.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not here. He made a brief appearance and made a typically distasteful and personal attack upon the members of the Northern Ireland Labour Party—particularly Mr. David Bleakley. Although I differ from Mr. Bleakley and the Labour Party of Northern Ireland, I find the remarks of the Leader of the SDLP the sort of remarks that should not have been said in this House when there was no member of the Northern Ireland Labour Party to reply to them.
Of course, the hon. Member for Belfast, West is bitter because the Northern Ireland Labour Party, including its chairman and other members, have revealed and labelled the SDLP as a sectarian party. It is clear from what the Northern Ireland Labour Party has said in the past that it confirms what the Unionist Party has been saying about the SDLP.
The SDLP may now present a new public image and a new face of seeking harmony in Northern Ireland, but it is not so long since it was urging people on to the streets to engage in a confrontation with the police and the soldiers. One member of the SDLP, as I repeated in this House, said, at a meeting at Coalisland, that the people should "bloody well take as much as they can in the way of family benefits and unemployment benefits from the British Government, and bloody well get twice as much if they can." Those remarks came from a member of the SDLP. That is the party that is led by the hon. Member for Belfast, West.
It is clear from the SDLP's manifesto that it is its wish that Northern Ireland should become part of a united Ireland. But it goes further than that. In its manifesto it calls for an amnesty for political prisoners, namely, those people who have been guilty of murdering innocent people. British citizens, and soldiers who are there to protect life and property. That is typical of the SDLP.
The provisions for a poll in Clause 1 are absolutely worthless. That is borne


out by what some Opposition spokesmen have had to say, including the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), who rightly pointed out that in a few years the whole of Clause I could be deleted by another Act of this Parliament. That is right. Clause 1 amounts to an attempt to lull the Ulster majority into a false feeling of security. It is being used to sweeten the unpalatable and undemocratic provisions in other parts of the Bill. It may deceive some people but it will not deceive everybody. In due course the people of Northern Ireland will wake up to the fact that the Bill provides a system of government that would never have been imposed by this Parliament even in a colony of darkest Africa.
Ever since 1969, when the IRA began its obscene terror campaign, we have had repeated declarations supporting the law-abiding majority. More recently, when those pledges were betrayed, we have had robust declarations from Her Majesty's Government that Ulster will remain part of the United Kingdom until a poll decides otherwise. We had the 1949 declaration, which was contained in an Act of that year introduced by a Labour Government led by Mr. Attlee. That has been abandoned. It was stated in that declaration that there would be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
The present Labour Party has gone back on that. This is a warning, if the people of Northern Ireland need a warning, that they cannot rely on any statement made by any right hon. or hon. Member on either Front Bench in this House.

7.0 p.m.

In March 1972, when the Prime Minister announced the suspension of the Stormont Parliament, he declared clearly that the prorogation was only temporary. Time has proved that his statement was worthless because, in due course, with the Republican campaign, Stormont was not revived but cast aside in order to appease the Republicans and the IRA. As a result of the IRA murders, mutilations and destruction, the Prime Minister changed his mind. It proves that terrorism does pay.

The great mistake that the Government and the Opposition leadership make is that they give way and try to appease terrorism, but the situation in Ulster has proved, as the pre-war appeasement of Hitler proved, that appeasement will not stop those who wish to cause destruction and chaos. When some Labour Members speak about a last chance for Northern Ireland, and when petitions are drawn up for the withdrawal of British troops, the IRA is encouraged to pursue its murderous campaign—indeed, to execute more British citizens and more British soldiers. Neither elections nor polls will stop the IRA from that campaign, because it behaves like any bully. It believes that if it goes on pushing someone around and lie gives way, it will be able to knock him over. But the people of Northern Ireland—the law-abiding majority—will take a stand and will not be pushed over. They have reached their sticking point and they cannot and will not give way any further.

The Clause contains provision for periodic plebiscites, and on each occasion when a poll is held the raw wound, created during the past years by the IRA campaign of terror and the bitter campaign waged by the SDLP, will be inflamed. Between each poll, the preparations for the next poll will create further bitterness.

We have in this House today a very Irish situation, because the Opposition are on a three-line Whip against having a poll in Northern Ireland. There are some exceptions among them—for example, the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), for both of whom I have deep respect. The Government have also issued a three-line Whip to force a poll on Northern Ireland. It is not so long ago, however, that on the question of entry to the Common Market the two parties took contrary positions. The Prime Minister had said that entry would only be on the basis of the wholehearted consent of the British people, but the Government refused to allow the British people to decide the issue by means of a referendum. I am opposed to the Common Market, but I was also opposed to the idea of a referendum on the issue. It is my view that one cannot decide things by referenda or polls. Although


I support Amendment No. 1, that does not mean that I support what many hon. Members opposite have said, although some of them have spoken with great common sense and sincerity.

The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said that "to hog-tie the future for 10 years-plus runs counter to our genius for flexibility". That could mean anything. It could mean that in time to come the House could take a different decision about the link between Northern Ireland and Britain. However, he added that there would always be a substantial minority in the North who would not wish to go into the South. Of course, the consent of the loyal people of Ulster cannot be measured by a simple arithmetical process.

We want friendly relations with the Republic. That has always been our wish. We have never expressed a contrary wish. But we do not intend to be absorbed by the Republic, and that ought to be understood in this House and, indeed, by the Prime Minister and other politicians in the Irish Republic.

I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman had to say about a tripartite conference. I do not accept that a foreign country that has harboured, and still harbours, IRA murderers within its boundaries, and which claims ultimate sovereignty over Northern Ireland, should have any say in the affairs of Northern Ireland. For that reason, I am totally opposed to the idea of a Council of Ireland, which would be used as a halfway house to a united Ireland. In the Assembly elections I made it clear to the electors that I found the idea totally repugnant, and I received more votes than the other six Unionist candidates who accepted the idea of a Council of Ireland.

Although the Assembly elections were held so that the people of Northern Ireland could express their opinions, and the elected representatives will use in due course the Assembly as a consultative body, it was at this sensitive time that the Prime Minister began what would constitute a series of meetings with the Eire Prime Minister. During their talks, they undoubtedly discussed the question of a poll in Northern Ireland on Monday, the status of Northern Ireland and the powers which would be devolved on the

Assembly and the Executive. That meeting was sheer folly on the part of the Prime Minister, because it seemed to be treating the Ulster electorate, which is part of the United Kingdom, with the utmost contempt, and to show that the notion of having a poll was totally worthless and what might, in the long run. amount to a confidence trick.

The Secretary of State today said that the provision for a poll does not mean that there must be a poll—only that one may be held. If that is to be so, surely, if need be, on a future occasion a Bill can be introduced into this House providing for a poll.

If there must be a poll, if Amendment No. 1 is defeated, I seek support for the proposition that a poll will be held only when it is requested by two-thirds of the members of the new Assembly. Anticipating that, the Secretary of State has said that the decision to hold a poll must be made by this House, and that it would be wrong to leave it to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Does democracy count for nothing in Northern Ireland? What is the point of holding elections to an Assembly if the representatives of the people cannot be entrusted with the decision whether to hold a poll? If that is the position, the representatives in the Assembly are being treated as second-class representatives, and that is something that should be repugnant to every Member of this House.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I wish only to comment on the despicable attack made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on the Northern Ireland Labour Party. The Northern Ireland Labour Party, with the trade union movement in Northern Ireland, has sought over the years to create a non-sectarian party. It has tried to deal with the social ills of Northern Ireland and has exploited no religious prejudice or belief. If there has a been failure, it is the failure of the British Labour Party not to give the Northern Ireland Labour Party the support it needed.
If the hon. Member for Belfast, West imagines that he can insult the Northern Ireland Labour Party and its leading members in the way he has done today and then expect support from us, he has another think coming to him.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Duffy: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Loughlin: I can speak within the Parliamentary Labour Party in the same way as anyone else.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) rebuked the hon. Member for Belfast, West. We on the Opposition benches should pay tribute to the valiant attempt of the Northern Ireland Labour Party to steer clear of religious prejudice and to fight on the social issues.

Mr. Orme: Despite what the Jonahs on both sides of the House have said, I believe that the new Assembly will work and that there will be power sharing. Despite what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, I believe that the majority want the new Assembly to work. If that means bringing together members of the Unionist Party, the SDLP, the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance, so much the better for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has a part to play in this, as have the Unionists and the Northern Ireland Labour Party.
We have been unduly pessimistic this afternoon. I am cautiously optimistic, although I know that we have a long way to go and it will not be easy. The hon. Member for Antrim, North and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) have a responsibility to see that the Bill is reflected in Northern Ireland and that the people they represent have a fair chance to make the constitution work.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman say that he reflects in the country the Industrial Relations Act?

Mr. Orme: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would refer to the Industrial Relations Act. I bitterly opposed it, and my union is still opposed to it, but that is on a different plane. When certain sections of the community defy an Act of Parliament they do not do so with bullets and guns. The situation here is not on all-fours with the situation in

Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to violence, and I accept that without qualification.

We could go on ad infinitum giving guarantee upon guarantee, but, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and other Unionist Members said, at the end of the day all this underwriting and underlining means nothing when each Parliament is sovereign and any decision can be changed. It is by our attitude and actions that we are judged.

The Opposition have said time and again that it is impossible to force a majority into the Republic against their will. Some people who supported the border poll are now saying that the link with the United Kingdom is so tenuous that it might not last and they are, therefore, going for an independent Ulster. I am thinking here of Mr. William Craig. Those people have now moved away from their original attitude. But if a certain section want an independent Ulster, the minority have a veto against it. That is why we arrived at the solution of the Assembly.

If the Assembly appears to be working after several years and people want a border poll to underwrite the rights of the majority just when power sharing is working, the arguments will again be thrown back on sectarian lines and away from the working of the Assembly and the new constitution. A pledge has been given in the sense that the majority have a guarantee within the terms of the constitution. We cannot underwrite that further either by border polls or by any other means. We want to see the people on both sides of the divide working together with the new constitution within the terms of paragraph 112 of the White Paper, in the Irish dimension, but by agreement and not by threats or violence. In that context a plebiscite will only make the situation worse, and I ask the House to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 264.

Division No. 182.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Allen, Scholefield
Ashton, Joe


Albu, Austen
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Atkinson, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ashley, Jack
Bagier, Gordon A. T.




Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamming, William
Moyle, Roland


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Baxter, William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Roy
Ogden, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Hatton, F.
O'Halloran, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Bert


Booth, Albert
Hooson, Emlyn
Orme, Stanley


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Horam, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bradley, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paget, R. T.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pendry, Tom


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.


Carmichael, Nell
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham. S.)
Prescott, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull. W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Radice, Giles


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n & R'dnor)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Russell
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kilfedder, James
Ross, RI. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Latham, Arthur
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leonard, Dick
Silverman, Julius


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Douglas-Mann Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Machin, George
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, Tom
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
McMaster, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Ewing, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin


Faulds, Andrew
Maginnis, John E.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wallace, George


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marsden, F.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitehead, Phillip


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Milne, Edward
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Woof, Robert


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William



Gourley, Harry
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)









NOES


Adley, Robert
Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Moate, Roger


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Money, Ernie


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Atkins, Humphrey
Gorst, John
Monro, Hector


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
More, Jasper


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gray, Hamish
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Green, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Murton, Oscar


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Benyon, W.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Neave, Airey


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls Sir Harmer


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Blaker, Peter
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Onslow, Cranley


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Body, Richard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Boscawen, Hn Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Parkinson, Cecil


Bowden, Andrew
Havers, Sir Michael
Percival, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Bray, Ronald
Hay, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hayhoe, Barney
Pink, R. Bonner


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Higgins, Terence L.
Proudfoot. Wilfred


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
Holt, Miss Mary
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buck, Antony
Hornby, Richard
Raison, Timothy


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Burden, F. A.
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Redmond, Robert


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Channon, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (W'st'd & W'df'd)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Churchill, W. S.
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Johnson Smith. G. (E. Grinstead)
Rost, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cockeram. Eric
Jopling, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Coombs, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Cooper, A. E.
Kershaw. Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset. S.)
Shersby, Michael


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Simeons, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Kinsey, J. R
Sinclair, Sir George


Contain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Crouch, David
Knox, David
Soref, Harold


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Lamont, Norman
Speed, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lane, David
Spence, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Paul
Lewis. Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Drayson, G. B
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stokes, John


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, R. N.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tapsell, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Farr, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Temple, John M.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Madden, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Tilney, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Trew, Peter


Foster, Sir John
Mather, Carol
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fowler, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David



Mills, Peter (Torrington)








Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Worsley, Marcus


Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wiggin, Jerry
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Walters, Dennis
Wilkinson, John
Younger, Hn. George


Ward, Dame Irene
Winterton, Nicholas



Weatherill, Bernard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


White, Roger (Gravesend)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Kenneth Clarke

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 1, line 15, at end insert:

A poll shall not be held until after a resolution passed by a two thirds majority of

the Northern Ireland Assembly requiring such a poll'.—[Capt. Orr.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes: 9, Noes: 257.

Division No. 183.]
AYES
[7.31 p.m.


Biggs-Davison, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



McMaster, Stanley
Soref, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maginnis, John E.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. James Kilfedder and


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. James Molyneaux.


Paisley, Rev. Ian






NOES


Adley, Robert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hornby, Richard


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Drayson, G. B.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, David (Guildford)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Astor, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Awdry, Daniel
Emery, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Eyre, Reginald
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Farr, John
James, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (W'st'd & W'df'd)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jessel, Toby


Benyon, W.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Biffen, John
Fortescue, Tim
Jopling, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Foster, Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fowler, Norman
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Body, Richard
Fox, Marcus
Kershaw, Anthony


Boscawen. Hn. Robert
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Galbraith, T. G. D.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bowden, Andrew
Gardner, Edward
Kinsey, J. R.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gibson-Watt, David
Kitson, Timothy


Bray, Ronald
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knox, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lamont, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gorst, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Raymond
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)


Buck, Antony
Gray, Hamish
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Burden, F. A.
Green, Alan
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Luce, R. N.


Carlisle, Mark
Grylls, Michael
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gummer, J. Selwyn
MacArthur, Ian


Cary, Sir Robert
Gurden, Harold
McCrindle, R. A.


Channon, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Chapman, Sydney
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madden, Martin


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Madel, David


Clegg, Walter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Cockeram, Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil


Cooke, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Mather, Carol


Coombs, Derek
Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Cooper, A. E.
Havers, Sir Michael
Mawby, Ray


Cordle, John
Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hay. John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cormack, Patrick
Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Costain, A. P.
Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Critchley, Julian
Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Crouch, David
Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Holland, Philip
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Holt, Miss Mary
Moate, Roger


Dean, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Money, Ernie




Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Temple, John M.


Monro, Hector
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Montgomery, Fergus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


More, Jasper
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mudd, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Trew, Peter


Murton, Oscar
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Neave, Airey
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Scott, Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Nott, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Waddington, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Onslow, Cranley
Shersby, Michael
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally
Simeons, Charles
Walters, Dennis


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Weatherill, Bernard


Parkinson, Cecil
Skinner, Dennis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Percival, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Speed, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Spence, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Pink, R. Bonner
Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stainton, Keith
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Woodnutt, Mark


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stokes, John
Worsley, Marcus


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Raison, Timothy
Sutcliffe, John
Younger, Hn. George


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tapsell, Peter



Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

ALTERATIONS IN DEVOLVED RESPONSIBILITIES

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 42, at end insert:
'(3) Where a resolution has been passed under the provisions of subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall give effect to such a resolution in not less than three years from the passing of such resolutions'.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to discover what is in the Government's mind about the time scale in certain circumstances.
In Committee I pointed out that in the Act of 1920 the powers which were held in temporary reserve, especially those relating to internal security, were so held for three years. At the end of the three years they were duly handed over to the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
In this Bill we are not writing in any period for the transfer of powers. Probably it would be unreasonable to tie the Government to a term of years in present circumstances where we are producing a form of constitution which is so highly experimental and so very doubtful in its effect. I admit that the amendment does that and in many senses probably is

defective. However, it is merely a peg on which to hang an argument in order to explore the mind of the Government about the timing.
Despite all that we have said, let us suppose that the Secretary of State is able to form an Executive. Let us suppose, further, that Part II of this legislation is implemented and the transfer of powers commences. How long do the Government think it will take to transfer those powers? Are the Government thinking of a long period or of transferring the powers as fast as possible?
If the Government are concerned that the scheme should work—in other words, if it is the intention that it shall be put into operation so soon as we are able to get a chief executive with an Executive around him which commands a majority in the Assembly—I suggest that they will have to try to devolve the powers fairly fast. If they do not and it is seen that the Executive and the Assembly have precious little power over anything, especially over internal security and the general fate of the people, it will be a further stimulus to the failure of the whole concept.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to say that the Government intend to get on with the transfer of powers as fast as possible. That is all I want to know at this stage, and that is the sole purpose of the amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has provided a peg upon which to hang an argument. I wish to take advantage of that peg and say to the Government that I hope that in transferring any powers they will have learned the lesson of the past 50 years and will at no time transfer the power of internal security to those forces which held that power during the years which led to the current crisis.
If there is anything that we have learned during those years it is that it was not until it was too late that we used the reserve powers available to us under Section 75 of the Act of 1920. Often hon. Members who foresaw exactly what would happen in Northern Ireland were frustrated by the fact that the devolution of powers precluded them from raising these matters.
I hope that the Government will not be misled by the hon. and gallant Member's reference to a majority of the Assembly, because, as I understand it, under Clause 25(2) and (5) the consultative committees will have to be balanced and there will have to be a balance of parties. That means an Assembly where one would expect committees to be composed, perhaps, of a leader from the Executive or the majority party, a deputy leader from the Opposition or a minority party, and a balance of parties. In other words, it would be a partnership and a sharing of powers.
Unless that comes about and we end the old position of a majority forcing its will upon the minority, and unless we have co-operation between the two, I do not see how those subsections can be implemented.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member has raised a very interesting point. Presumably, an Executive cannot last if it cannot command a majority in the Assembly, because it has to get any measure through the Assembly.

Mr. Rose: An Executive which commands the support of one section of a divided community into which the other can never enter because of its position is precisely the sort of Executive which has failed Northern Ireland over the last 50 years.
What I am asking for is an Executive which commands the support of the majority based upon a very different concept; that is, a majority in partnership and, therefore, a majority which would comprise, one would expect, the more moderate elements of the Unionist Party and those around it, and those who are represented in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Unless that happens, the power cannot be transferred and there cannot be a devolution.
I find a growing impatience in my constituency and as I travel around the country at the presence of British troops maintaining security in Northern Ireland and because of the failure of certain elements to accept that co-operation is necessary.
I hope, therefore, that the implementation of this provision will be guided by the ability of the Assembly to find this modus vivendi between the majority and the minority, in the recognition that this is its last chance to do so. I hope that in transferring these powers we do not at the same time divest ourselves of the ultimate sanction and the ultimate control, which we did over so long a period and which allowed this crisis to occur.
Using the hon. and gallant Member's peg, I oppose his amendment. I urge the Government to be very careful in bringing into being the powers that are set out in Clause 25 and not to allow those powers to be devolved upon any Government who are not truly representative of both the major communities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McMaster: I have been trying to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). I direct his attention to the facts of the case in Northern Ireland. Under the provisions of the Bill we in Northern Ireland are being asked to share power in a way that would never be contemplated in this country. I see that the hon. Member nods assent. He would probably say that the reason is that the circumstances are totally different in Northern Ireland. But one cannot imagine that in this country members of, for example, the National Socialist Party or of the Communist Party, which are small minority parties here, would be


invited to form part of the Government of this country, be it a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, on the ground that unless such persons were invited they would not be properly represented.
I ask the hon. Member to consider whether his argument is not fallacious. He is saying that because of the different circumstances in Northern Ireland, and the terror and gunfire of the past three years and the terrible death roll, we are being asked to accept something less than an ordinary standard of democracy. Surely that must be wrong. It means that we are being asked—it is provided for in the Bill—to accept certain provisions which are less than the ordinary rule of and understanding of democracy; that is, that the majority rules.

Mr. Rose: Will not the hon. Member accept that there are many countries in the world that have precisely the same problem of an ethnic, racial or religious division which provide institutions safeguarding both or, perhaps, more than one of such groups within the framework of democracy? That is the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not possible for a built-in minority ever to come to power as it is, for example, for a political party in this country to come to power, for here politics are not along sectarian lines.

Mr. McMaster: Yes, but there are similar groups, even in this country, and if the hon. Gentleman searches he will not find any other country where the provisions set out in the clause apply, where they are being invited not just to form part of a parliament and provide leaders of committees, as the Unionist Party suggested in the Green Paper in Northern Ireland before Stormont was suspended, but to provide members of the Executive, men who in a few years' time will be facing one another again at an election with conflicting policies.
These provisions are less than the ordinary democratic provisions that we expect in this country. They are being forced on us when we should be on our guard not to give concessions to terrorism. It is no argument——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) Order: The hon. Gentleman must not continue with that line. This is a matter of three years.

Mr. McMaster: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been generous, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to delay the House on this point. However, I felt pressed to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Blackley.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) for the moderate tone in which he moved his amendment, for his candour in recognising that it may well be unreasonable and for admitting that it may be defective. He will not be surprised to hear me say that from the Government's point of view it is unacceptable. Nevertheless, he made clear that he was putting it forward to probe, and he provided a peg, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) recognised, for some speculation about the future. I must disappoint my hon. and gallant Friend, because this speculation is of a kind in which it would not be right for the Government to enter. Indeed, many of the questions about the future that my hon. and gallant Friend poses are questions I am not in a position to answer, nor would anyone else be at this stage.
The situation is as set out in the Bill—that, when the criteria in Clause 2(1)(b) are satisfied in the mind of my right hon. Friend, the procedures laid down in the Bill for the devolution of those powers not mentioned in Schedule 3—obviously, not in Schedule 2—will take place. But the timetable and scheduling of that process is something on which I am not in a position to give the House any opinion or hard information at this stage.
What is in the Bill as a procedure for the devolution of the powers not mentioned in Schedule 3 is the procedure that we shall follow. If one took it literally, the amendment would go in the opposite direction because it would go far beyond the intentions of Clause 3(2) in giving to the Assembly powers of initiation in requiring items to he taken back from the transferred list and put into the Schedule 3 list, which would be rather an odd process.
In addition, it would put a subordinate legislative assembly in a position to dictate to this House, which would be upside down and thoroughly unacceptable to the House and to Parliament. This was really a means of trying to peer into the future. Hon. Members may well he able to do that but the Government cannot join in that exercise today. I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend, in the light of what I have said, whether he will withdraw his amendment.

Captain Orr: Of course, the Minister has said almost precisely what I expected. Consequently, I can hardly even plead disappointment. I think it is a pity that, when one is concerned with the devolution of all these powers, nobody has any idea whatever as to the order in which they might be devolved, or the time scale during which they might be devolved or anything like that. However, I understand my hon. Friend's reticence, and it would be silly if I, who do not imagine that the scheme will work, should engage hotly in academic argument about what will happen when what I believe an impossibility takes place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF MEASURES DEALING WITH EXCEPTED OR RESERVED MATTERS

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 29, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take also Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 33, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Captain Orr: Again, this is simply a peg to get an undertaking from the Government.
This clause deals with the parliamentary control of measures connected with accepted or reserved matters. All I want to know from the Government is that the urgency procedure will be handled in a responsible manner.
We have suffered a good deal through the period of what I might call the interregnum when Orders in Council

have been put before this House under the urgency procedure and where those orders are already well under way or, as far as their implementation is concerned, impossible to retrieve if this House decides that they are undesirable. An example is Orders in Council governing rules under which the Assembly was elected—rules that were implemented before the House had decided whether they were right or not.
All I want from my hon. Friend is a statement that this kind of proceeding will be used with the greatest possible care in future and that we will not, if it is at all possible, be faced with an irretrievable situation so that, when we have to approve transferred matters as a result of orders in the Assembly, if they are ever made we should be able to see whether or not an order is to our liking, and not find that the process is under way and we are only a rubber stamp.

8.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) for the way in which he has moved the amendment. As usual, he is looking carefully at all legislation and probing it. But the effect of the amendment would be to remove from the Bill the urgency procedure, which would be a serious matter.
Great care will, of course, be used under this clause—that is obvious—but the Government believe that it is important to have good government and speedy government when problems exist. It may be that financial matters urgently require this clause, that sudden urgent legislation is needed, and possibly the recess could be a delaying factor. Therefore, we believe that the clause should be retained, because it will help to avoid the parliamentary recess difficulty and deal with matters that need urgent attention.
Subsection (4) provides that the Secretary of State must lay the measure before Parliament after approval, so that there will be time for debate. If my hon. and gallant Friend will ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I can assure him that great care will be taken. This provision is necessary for good and speedy government in certain circumstances.

Captain Orr: The Under-Secretary has said almost exactly what I wanted him to say. The Government must be aware that this is a procedure that it would be undesirable to use too frequently and irresponsibly. I fully accept that the amendment would deny the urgency procedure altogether. That was not my intention. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

THE NORTHERN IRELAND EXECUTIVE

Mr. Peter Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 7, line 28, at end insert:
'(7) Before making any appointment under this section (otherwise than by virtue of subsection (6)) the Secretary of State shall so far as practicable consult with the parties represented in the Assembly'.
This amendment is the result of my right hon. Friend's undertaking in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) moved an amendment to require an appointment to the Northern Ireland Executive to be made only after consultation with the parties in the Assembly. My right hon. Friend has of course looked carefully into this matter and has taken note of what was said. We hope that the amendment will be very useful.
The amendment uses very similar wording to that suggested by my hon. Friend, but it puts it in a separate subsection, instead of adding it to subsection (3). Subsection (6) provides for the appointment of caretaker members of the Executive in a situation in which it is not possible to make appointments to the Executive that conform to the criteria in Clause 2(1)(b). This power, we hope, will be rarely used, but it should be there because serious difficulties in the formation of an Executive might arise from the filling of a particular post.
My right hon. Friend is required to consult parties represented in the Assembly only "so far as practicable". There is no mystery behind these words. They are inserted merely to ensure that the Secretary of State is not required to go to extraordinary lengths to contact the parties in the Assembly. Obviously,

some party might refuse to meet him or place impossible conditions in the way of such a meeting. These things have to be taken care of, and that is the reason for these words, which are a useful contribution to the Bill.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I thank the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has moved the amendment and the Secretary of State for following up his undertaking in Committee in response to my amendment. Obviously, everyone hopes that it will be possible for the parties themselves to agree on the filling of the portfolios. In that situation, as the Secretary of State has made clear, his rule would be largely that of formal appointment.
But my right hon. Friend has extensive powers under the Bill, so I felt it right—I am glad that this has been accepted—that it should be written into the Bill that a process of consultation should take place between the parties so that people who are brought into the Executive represent their parties to a greater or smaller extent and are not purely political nominees of the Secretary of State. I am glad that that has been made absolutely clear.
On the other point, I had intended to query the words "so far as practicable". However, the gloss that my hon. Friend has put on them, and which is clearly in the record, is valuable. I thank him again.

Captain Orr: I am not really pleased with the amendment, but that is not surprising, because I do not happen to believe in the concept behind Clause 2. Consequently, it could hardly be expected that I would approve a system whereby, before a Cabinet could be formed, all the parties in the Parliament had to be consulted. I simply want to put it on record that I and my hon. Friends would not approve of this. But, of course, we will not vote against it, because the nonsense is already in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 8, line 6, leave out Clause 10.
The purpose of the amendment is not to attack or impugn the manner in which my right hon. and learned Friend has discharged his difficult office as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, but if the Bill is designed to find an acceptable basis for the devolution of powers and responsibilities to institutions in Northern Ireland there is no reason why Northern Ireland should not have its own Attorney-General. The onus of establishing that Northern Ireland should not have its own Attorney-General would be upon the Government.
I speak as one unlearned in the law, but I understand that there are divergencies between the law obtaining in Northern Ireland and that obtaining on this side of the channel.
For example, the law applying to Northern Ireland dates to the period before the Act of Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The statute law enacted since the State of Northern Ireland was set up in 1920 is different in certain respects. There have been Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament as well as Acts of the Imperial Parliament applying to Northern Ireland.
On a more practical note, the Attorney-General has responsibilities connected with the security of the Province. This is a thorny question but as my right hon. and learned Friend will have observed from the Notice Paper, my hon. Friends and I are anxious that responsibility for the internal security of Northern Ireland should pass into Ulster hands at the earliest possible moment.
We shall lay firm foundations for future law and order only if security within the Province—and I do not speak of the rôle of Her Majesty's Forces—is discharged by local men with local knowledge. This seems to be an additional reason why we should earnestly consider whether there ought not to be an Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for the personal approach that he made at the beginning of his remarks in moving this amendment. I appreciate what he and others of my hon. Friends have in mind. I will try to explain what lies behind the proposal that the Attorney-General of Northern Ire

land should also be the Attorney-General for England and Wales—and, because we are dealing with a Northern Irish Bill, I put it that way rather than the other.
The Attorney-General has two rôles to fulfil. He is, first, Counsel to the Crown and Government. This applies to an Attorney-General wherever he may be. That means that he is the legal adviser and is not answerable to Parliament for that advice. He may be answerable to his colleagues, or he may be answerable in the courts for that advice, but he is not answerable to Parliament.
In his second rôle he has ultimate responsibility and answerability to Parliament for the processes of criminal prosecution. That is an important matter, which is kept strictly outside the province of his colleagues. When he is answering for prosecutions he acts independently of his colleagues, informing them if necessary, seeking, if he wishes it, their opinion on matters of public interest. But he is not affected by their views.
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there has been established a Northern Ireland Office of Director of Public Prosecutions. That is an office the appointments to which fall within the excepted powers of the Bill. As the Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for prosecutions in the Province some Minister has to be answerable for his acts. In the same way as I am answerable at this Box for the acts of the Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales and have to bear responsibility for that which he has done or failed to do, so there must be a Minister who can answer for the Director of Public Prosecutions of Northern Ireland.
It would be wholly undesirable if the Secretary of State had to answer. The separation of these powers of public prosecution from the Executive is of the greatest importance and is jealously guarded. The Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland is Mr. Shaw and his deputy is Mr. McCloskey. Any future appointments will be removable only by the Attorney-General. In conducting prosecutions these people should be like members of the judiciary, who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. These matters are essentially the responsibility of Westminster. If we were to


have an Attorney-General for Northern Ireland we would not be able to have responsibility to Westminster, where ultimate responsibility must lie.

8.15 p.m.

I concede that an Attorney-General for Northern Ireland has certain other functions. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that there are differences in the law, but they are not very great. The common law is common to both Northern Ireland and England. The differences in the statute law are mainly matters of procedure, although there are some matters of substance. As to security, there are only those two rôles that the Attorney-General has to fulfil. He has the duty to advise on matters of law and he is responsible for prosecutions. It is for him to answer if prosecutions are not carried out fairly, honestly and decently in the Province by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not believe that anyone would level that accusation against Mr. Barry Shaw or Mr. McCloskey but if they ever did, it would be for me to answer.

There is already a junior counsel in the Attorney-General's office in Northern Ireland. I propose to appoint a senior counsel and these would be my standing counsel in matters of charities and would be also available to advise the Executive if necessary. They would be able to act when required for the Crown and the Director of Public Prosecutions in difficult and important cases.

This is part of the framework of the Bill—that there shall be judges appointed by the Lord Chancellor and responsible, in so far as they are responsible to anyone, to this House, and that prosecutions shall be in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions, answerable to the House through the Attorney-General. This calls for the retention of Clause 10. It is for these and other reasons that I suggest to my hon. Friend that the proposal in the Bill, although it may add to the burdens of whoever holds the office, is one that can be carried out, leaving the functions to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is assembling his staff. He will shortly have a full complement. This system is in the best interests of the Province.

Captain Orr: I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the quality of the work of my right hon. and learned Friend. There is no reflection upon the way in which he has carried out what has become a great burden. Later in the week we shall be concerned with other legislation in which he has had a hand. In addition, the present state of Northern Ireland automatically puts a heavy burden upon him. We think he was carrying out his responsibilities with great ability and impartiality. Obviously, if the House were to carry this amendment it would make the Bill even more nonsensical than it is—and I am sure that my hon. Friend has every intention of asking leave to withdraw it when the time comes, because where we have a Director of Public Prosecutions in Ulster and a system where all matters concerning internal security, law and order, the police, and everything else, are presently reserved to this House, it would probably be a nonsense to have a separate Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
That does mean, however, that we depart from our view as to what ought to happen ultimately. We believe that these matters should ultimately return to a Northern Ireland authority. In that context, we most certainly think there is one office that ought to be transferred with everything else—the office of Attorney General. My right hon. and learned Friend rightly pointed out that one of the principal functions of an Attorney General is to advise the Executive. Of course, if one envisages the executive responsibility for internal security returning to Northern Ireland it would seem very strange to reserve for ever the position of Attorney-General, and not to have a separate Attorney-General for Northern Ireland in that situation.
I believe, none the less, that as things now stand, with the Directorate of Public Prosecutions being an excepted matter—it is a great pity that it should be—and as one takes the view, as I do, that the Bill cannot have very long duration, I should be perfectly happy if my hon. Friend felt able to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw this amendment. In doing so I express my agreement with what my right hon. and learned


Friend said in praise of Mr. Barry Shaw and Mr. McCluskey. Their burdens are very heavy and dangerous, as are those of the magistrates and all in the Judiciary in Northern Ireland and deserve our thanks and support.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18

SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 11, line 41, after 'him', insert 'after being passed'.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Clause 25

PROCEDURE

Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 17, line 40, after 'shall', insert ', subject to subsection (5A) below,'.
I was asked in Committee to consider the possibility of introducing more flexibility into the position whereby the chairmen of the committees should be the same people as the heads of Northern Ireland Departments. I assured my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that I would consider this point. In that debate I said:
Frankly, I believe that the way we are proposing is right. I do not wish to fob off my right hon. or hon. Friends by saying that I am impressed to the point of changing it. But having heard their arguments it would be wrong for me not to say that I shall consider them, without commitment. on the basis that it may be right to proceed in the way we propose and that it may be wrong to be totally inflexible about it.
What I have sought to do with these amendments is to meet both points. We are providing that all heads of Northern Ireland Departments should be chairmen of consultative committees, but we are taking power to change that by Order in Council at a later date, should that prove to be the right thing to do. These amendments meet more than I promised in Committee and I hope that they will be accepted on that basis.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I take it that Amendment No. 13 is being taken with this, as it is on the same point. When my

right hon. Friend said that he will see how it will be done I take it he means that this will be in consultation with the parties in the Assembly, and that Her Majesty's Government will consult with them while in process of drawing up the rules and orders of the Assembly and in process of forming the Executive, and that generally he will take the parties' views.
I believe this is important. The Government have given themselves this additional flexibility, and I am hopeful that a greater range of posts and of areas of responsibility will be available for Members of the Assembly to fill, giving them a direct stake in the operation of the Assembly. By this process a certain number of additional posts of responsibility are provided for members of the Assembly. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has only taken powers to do it but on balance it seems that this is something which should be welcomed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): If it is the wish of the House I am quite happy to take Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together.

Captain Orr: I ant obliged for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had assumed that we were also discussing Amendment No. 13. I believe that this arose out of an amendment of mine in Committee, on which I argued that chairmanship of committees should be quite separate from the heads of Departments; in other words, I was thinking of assemblies in parliamentary functions. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong to marry the two.
My right hon. Friend was not able to accept my amendment, but this gives him flexibility to accept the spirit of my amendment if, in practice, it is made plain to him that it would be a sensible thing to do. I welcome it. My right hon. Friend has been helpful and constructive in that sense. I am not sure that I go entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). The creation of "jobs for the boys" is not the best way of looking at a new constitution, and I would not endorse what he has said. But I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done in these two amendments and I hope the House will pass them.

Mr. McMaster: I welcome the amendment, which we argued in Committee. My only regret is that it has been put in this form, giving the Secretary of State power to make these changes if he thinks them advisable. I still feel, as I argued in Committee, that it would have been much better to start from the word "go" with the heads of the various committees not being members of the Executive. That would have given the heads of committees a great deal more independence and perhaps an ability to influence Government in Northern Ireland. in so far as powers are being devolved on the Northern Ireland Assembly. But I feel that it would have been much better had this formed part of the legislation starting with the commencement of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 17, line 45, at end insert:

'(5A) Her Majesty may by Order in Council repeal or amend so much of subsection (5) above as relates to the chairmanship of consultative committees and make such consequential or transitional provision in connection with the repeal or amendment as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient but the power to make Orders under this section (which includes power to vary or revoke a previous Order) shall not be exercisable before the apopinted day and no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make such an Order unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Clause 27

DISSOLUTION AND PROROGATION

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 20, line 3, after 'Majesty', insert:
', after taking into account any vote or resolution of the Assembly which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant'.
It may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with it Government Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18, because they make the same point.
In Committee many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) argued that the provisions on possible dissolution and prorogation of the Assembly were not satisfactory in that they did not take into account the views of, first, the Assembly

itself and, secondly, this House. The amendments seek to meet those points.
The effect of the amendments is twofold. First, before Her Majesty makes any Order in Council proroguing or dissolving the Assembly she must take into account
any vote or resolution of the Assembly which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant.
She is required to take that into account in every case. However, she is not required to seek from the Assembly its views on the question of prorogation or dissolution. In appropriate circumstances it might be right actively to seek the views of the Assembly, but it would be wrong in principle for the clause to bind Her Majesty to seek those views where they had not been offered voluntarily. However, she is obliged to take them into account if they are offered voluntarily.
The second effect of the amendments is that any order dissolving the Assembly, proroguing the Assembly for more than four months, extending any existing prorogation, or prescribing the date of any new election may be made only if it has first been approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament. In short, any order made under the authority of the clause is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, except, as is made clear, an order proroguing the Assembly for a period of up to four months and not extending any previous period of prorogation.
I hope that the House will feel that the amendments do what I undertook in Committee to achieve. First, the House would certainly be involved through the affirmative resolution procedure. Secondly, the Assembly would be involved, in that Her Majesty had to take into account
any vote or resolution of the Assembly which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant".

Captain Orr: Does the dissolution of the Assembly require an order in this House?

Mr. Whitelaw: That certainly is so.
We are protecting the position of the House with regard to dissolution and prorogation which we thought it should have and which the Bill in its original form did not give. Therefore, I move the amendments trusting that they meet the commitments made in Committee.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State is right to say that the amendments are designed to meet the wishes expressed by a number of hon. Members about the complicated matter of dissolution and so on, which is normally not spelled out. Our practice has grown up over the years by convention, and it is not the easiest thing to put in legislative form.
I welcome the amendments, and have only one question. Subsection (5), as amended, will read
If it appears to Her Majesty that the composition of the Assembly is such that it is not possible for the Secretary of State to make appointments under section 8 above which comply with the requirements of subsection (4) of that section and that it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved, Her Majesty, after taking into account any vote or resolution of the Assembly which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant …".
I was going to say that that is extremely vague wording, but perhaps "flexible" is the word we arc using. There is probably very good reason for it. The Assembly has not yet drawn up its rules and regulations, or whatever they will be called, and I admit that the position is extremely difficult.
In view of that background, as we do not know the circumstances and the general subjects that the Assembly will be discussing, it would be helpful if the Secretary of State could give us an idea of what is meant by
which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant".
I presume, for example, that if there were an adverse vote on some subjects it would not matter very much to the working of the Assembly, but on others it would be far more important.
I can see the need for flexibility in the whole matter, but from this side of the House we welcome the provision. I can see no other way in which this could be worded to make it more explicit, but if it were possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us some idea of the circumstance in which Her Majesty would have to make a judgment via the Secretary of State that would be helpful.

Captain Orr: I, too, think that there are certain difficulties here. I should have preferred a system under which powers were devolved to something that was

more like a parliamentary assembly, to an executive form of government that was more like our parliamentary system. I should have preferred the old system of the Royal Prerogative with regard to prorogation and dissolution. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has gone some way towards reducing his own arbitrary powers in the matter, and in that sense we are grateful to him for tabling these amendments. There will at least be some guidelines.
I take it that the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about what Her Majesty might consider relevant is, for example, a vote of no confidence in the Executive passed by the Assembly. Such a vote would make the working of the Executive impossible. It would make it impossible for the Executive to get any of its measures through the Assembly. That would seem to me—and if Her Majesty thinks along the same lines as everybody else she will no doubt agree—to be a highly relevant consideration. A motion by the Assembly to dissolve or prorogue itself would be a highly relevant consideration.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done. It reduces the arbitrary power of the Secretary of State, and it sets out the broad guidelines. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having met the wishes of the Committee.

Mr. Whitelaw: When an hon. Member answers a question put to a Minister, it is wrong for that Minister to repeat the answer. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has given the answer which after a certain amount of discussion I should have been able to give. My hon. and gallant Friend gave it without any discussion or advice. Having received the necessary advice. I should have given the same answer, and on that basis I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) will be satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 20, line 7, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
'(6) In any case in which an Order could be made under subsection (5) above Her Majesty may, instead of or before making an Order under that subsection, by Order in Council prorogue or further prorogue the Assembly.'.

No. 16, in page 20, line 14, leave out ', (5) or (6)' and insert 'or (5)'.

No. 17, in page 20, line 18, at end insert:
'(8) An Order in Council under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order and, except in the case of an Order proroguing the Assembly for a period of four months or less and not extending a previous period of prorogation, no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order under this section unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

No. 18, in page 20, line 24, at end insert:
'(9) An Order in Council under this section proroguing the Assembly shall specify the period of prorogation and the Assembly shall meet at the expiration of that period but without prejudice to the power of Her Majesty to recall it earlier and subject to any further prorogation or any dissolution by or under this section before the expiration of that period.'.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Clause 28

CONSTITUENCIES AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 21, line 26 after 'in', insert:
'the said section 1(1) or'.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Clause 29

ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE

Mr. Molyneaux: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 21, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).
I am not sure whether the remark made by my right hon. Friend a few moments ago will have any bearing upon the succession if at some time he leaves and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) moves up the bench a little.
Many reasons have been given for adopting the single transferable vote system in the first Assembly elections. I have no doubt that one objective implicit in the original direct rule decision was the destruction of the power and cohesion of the Unionist Party, and to a certain extent and for a strictly limited term that may have been achieved. The cohesion of what, after all, was a coalition party has suffered, but the result is probably not what was planned or intended. The

power of unionism—with a little "u"—is greater now than ever. The parties which incorporate the word "Unionist" in their titles have a combined strength of 50 seats out of the 78. If one adds the other pro-Union parties the total becomes 59 out of 78. This is not calculated to bring joy to the manipulators noted for their bitter hostility to Ulster.
I suspect that another reason for the single transferable vote system might have been a hope that it would benefit some of the smaller parties in Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland Labour Party and others. Here again, that has not happened. On the minority side, the smaller parties have been completely obliterated. I have no doubt that this has brought great pleasure to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but there will be many hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition side of the House, who will feel disappointed that he was unable in his hour of victory to be a little more generous towards those who suffered defeat.
The argument over who should represent a single-member constituency is one which generates a certain amount of heat at the time of an election, during the brief period of the campaign, but it lasts for only a very short period, and it is of little or no importance to the electorate, who are properly much more concerned about the quality of service which the member elected will provide. The fact that this issue of service to one's constituents is paramount, in their minds at least, leads to the conclusion that the single-member constituency is definitely preferable to the multi-member constituency, where there can never be the same close contact between the representative and his constituents as there is in the single-member constituency.
It is particularly regrettable that this now is the situation in Northern Ireland, where the Stormont representatives from now on, from 1st October onwards, will have to act in the rôle of local or county councillors in many matters because now they will have to deal with matters that were formerly dealt with by county councils and other local authorities—very important matters of health and welfare and education. Perhaps this would have been quite possible in the context of the former Northern Ireland single-member constituencies, but I have the feeling that


an elector with a welfare problem will feel very remote, perhaps neglected and insignificant, knowing quite well that he is only one of 150,000 persons in the supposed care of eight Assembly members ranging over an entire constituency very much larger than any constituency in the rest of the United Kingdom, its members having no clearly defined areas of responsibility or oversight.
There is a wide choice of other systems. There is the well-tried simple majority system employed in elections to this House; there is the limited vote system; the culminative vote system; the points system; the list system. I do not propose to elaborate on them or to deploy arguments in favour of them because I am well aware that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has made a study of several of those systems, and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be successful in catching your eye so as to make a contribution to the debate.
However, whatever may be said for any particular system of voting, it is difficult to see or understand the reasoning behind the decision that all future elections to the Assembly shall be on this one system. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench have been very realistic and over and over again, today and on other occasions, have been saying that no one can possibly foresee what will happen in Northern Ireland in the next 10 years.

8.45 p.m

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues have refused on many occasions to prophesy or to give any estimates about future events. Why then is there this determination to saddle the new Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland with one specific system of elections and voting? I cannot understand it. I know that it has been said in this Chamber in defence of the intelligent electors of Northern Ireland that they have managed well in the local council elections and the Assembly elections to make the thing work, but that assessment is based on the number of spoiled votes. That simply means the occasions on which the elector has perhaps spoiled his vote by writing an obscene remark upon it or spoiling his paper in some other way. It does not take into account the enor

mous number of errors which were made and about which we all know.

Many of my constituents came to see me the day after the poll saying they had voted for particular candidates and asking whether they had done right. I told them that it was not for me to tell them how to vote but I pointed out that they had scattered their votes over four parties, some of which were at loggerheads with the policies that those constituents professed to support. They seemed to feel that because they put their final vote against a candidate's name that was enough to down him. They felt that if they voted for someone with their second vote, that was the equivalent of putting that candidate on a par with the chap to whom they gave their first preference.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the fact that the Government have spent thousands of pounds on full-page newspaper advertisements telling people that to make their votes effective they must vote for as many candidates as possible has led to many people casting more votes than they were entitled to?

Mr. Molyneaux: I readily confirm that and I can confirm also that the advertisements saying that PR was "as easy as 1, 2, 3" misled a lot of people into doing just that. I have evidence of a tally room which discovered after two hours of polling that people were voting for the first four candidates—the Communist, the true blue Tory Unionist, the SDLP and then the Labour candidate, so there was no possible question of everyone understanding the system. But that fact is not shown up in the spoiled votes. It did not work out as well as some would have us believe.
It may be too late for the Government to change their mind on the Bill, but I hope that they will find some way of reviewing this matter, and that in the light of experience and changes which will undoubtedly come once my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) get their Assembly working and modified, which is even more important, we shall then see a much more realistic approach to the system.

Mr. English: On the occasion of the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill I pointed out my objections to the proposed system of election. I explained them in the context of the fact that, after all, this was not a new proportional system of election but was invented between the 1832 and 1867 Reform Acts in this country by people who were frightened by the prospect of democracy when our electorate increased by a massive 2 per cent. In the Republic on the last occasion when there was an election the previous Government's percentage of the votes went up so that they lost; the present Government's percentage of the votes went down compared with the previous election and they won.
I think that in the election some of my forecasts have proved true. I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will be fascinated to learn, for example, that the SDLP has a higher percentage of the seats than its votes entitled it to have. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman will think when he learns that his party has a higher percentage of seats than Vanguard although each of them received exactly the same percentage of votes. He may come at that point to consider that the system has its merits, even if he will not say so in public.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that the Democratic Unionist Party fielded 17 candidates and that Vanguard fielded 27 when he makes his remarks?

Mr. English: It should not influence the result of the electors' decision that their representation depends on whether a party alters the number of candidates. That is one of the things which are wrong with the STV system. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but it has nothing to do with the question of whether the electors' wishes are carried out by their representation in the Assembly.
It is possible to alter the representation in the Assembly according to the number of candidates who are put up under the STV system. That is not possible under the proportional representation system. I know that many hon. Members opposite would like to see the old and simple British system which, as I said on the last occasion when we discussed these matters, I approve of for

the United Kingdom as a whole. I know that some hon. Members would like to see that system restored.
Apart from the fact that the STV system is not a proportional representation system and that it deliberately reduces, as does the British system. the percentage of seats compared to votes of the smaller parties—for example, the Republican Clubs, which we hear are associated with the official IRA, could currently say that in a proper proportional representation system they would be entitled to at least one representative and that in fact they have not one—is even more important and of great concern.
I warned the Secretary of State that it seems that the clause goes back on an assurance which he made on 17th April. I think that the matter is important enough for me to quote the whole of the relevant paragraph. The right hon. Gentleman was replying to my amendment which suggested a list system—that is a proportional representation system—instead of the STV system. The right hon. Gentleman said:
We had someone in my Office working on the list system. A great deal of work was carried out in considering the list system on the one hand and the STV system on the other. I must admit that at one time I was convinced that the list system was the better of the two.
The Secretary of State was saying that he was convinced. He continued:
After careful consideration of both systems and listening to the argument one way and the other—they are narrowly balanced—I came to the conclusion, with my colleagues, that it was right to go for STV, which was the system favoured by those who had spoken to me.
I consider that the right hon. Gentleman's next words represent the important point. He said:
Therefore, I can give the assurance that the work has been done and that there is no reason for not changing if at a suitable time it is thought right that such a change should be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 16th April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 164.]
The word "assurance" is the Secretary of State's word. At that time he could give that assurance because the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill related to one election. It is only if Clause 29(a) is passed that that assurance will be broken.
Knowing the right hon. Gentleman, I am quite sure that he was entirely honest in giving that assurance. I think that this


provision has possibly crept in, even perhaps without his knowledge, but certainly without adequate thought. If it is allowed to go through, it will undoubtedly break his specific assurance. I know that one can always say "I only meant that one could change an Act of Parliament", but that was not the case at the time of the assurance. Without attempting to redraft it on my feet, I suggest that the provision relating to future elections should say, in effect, "There could be another system of election with the approval of the Secretary of State and this House."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is reading from a paper he proposes to quote in a speech I may call him to make.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is the results of the elections that I intend to quote, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members are reading photostat copies. Coming from Ireland, I have a proper copy.

Mr. English: I do not know about copies coming from Ireland, but I managed to persuade the Library to produce enough copies for my colleagues and myself. I may point out that in North Antrim the system was demonstrated by the fact that on the fifteenth count Mr. Craig—the other one—was elected without reaching the quota, which makes an interesting possibility under the single transferable vote.
I suggest that if Clause 29 is passed as it is, it is a direct reversal of what the Secretary of State said quite clearly at the time of the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill. I do not now wish to suggest any particular system for Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that people in Northern Ireland may wish to discuss it, particularly in the light possibly of the election results. I believe that it would be desirable, as the Secretary of State at one time apparently thought desirable, to introduce a real system of proportional representation into Northern Ireland, but other hon. Members may have different views. But I am certain that we should not rigidly impose this archaic system, which is used nowhere except in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned people elected without

reaching the quota. In North Down four candidates were elected without reaching the quota—Brownlow, Campbell, Dunleath—a noble lord—and McConnell.

Mr. English: There are only a few people in Northern Ireland, and the hon. Member for Antrim, North and the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) are amongst the few, who can claim to have been elected on the first vote. But I accept that this is yet another example of the peculiarities of the system. I think I can legitimately say that I anticipated these peculiarities. What I am saying now is that we should not rigidly pin this very unusual system of voting, which is used only in one sovereign State, the Republic of Ireland, on Northern Ireland. We should not pin this system, which is not a proportional representation system, on Northern Ireland by Clause 29. If we do, it will be contrary to the Secretary of State's assurance. Any change in the system, if we do impose it, should, I suggest, have to be approved by this House and the Secretary of State. Perhaps some hon. Members would wish it to be approved by the Assembly as well.
I am not normally one to give greater powers to Ministers but in order to carry out his assurance the Secretary of State should change the Bill in another place, specifying that an order to change the system can be put down for approval by this House. The assurance was given, and we passed the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill in the light of the assurance on the basis that it applied only to one election and could be changed in future. Now, an archaic system invented in an undemocratic age has been pinned on to Northern Ireland for ever, and that, in my view, is wrong.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said that this is an archaic system. I do not know whether he had the privilege of attending the recent Assembly elections, but I wondered what sort of election was taking place. The bookmakers' men appeared to be outside the polling stations taking the odds or trying to get people to back various candidates.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who has the election results in front of him, will discover that


the first preference results in County Armagh exactly predicted the end result. After a day and night of counting, the result was exactly the same as was brought out in the first preference voting. After all that work and expense we arrived at the same result.
To hold this first election we had to have proportional representation, because we had no single constituencies. In any future election there should be single constituencies for representation on the Assembly. The people of Northern Ireland desire above all to have a member representing a single constituency to whom they can go in time of need. In Armagh there are seven seats, one in the extreme south, one in the extreme north and the others in the centre. How my constituents will work out where to go for advice is beyond me. They will probably end up by coming to me and leaving the other boys alone.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West is right in saying that the system is archaic. On two occasions the system has been the subject of a plebiscite in Southern Ireland. The then Prime Minister wished to get rid of the system but failed to do so. Inherent in the Irish make-up is a love of voting. The more times the Irish can vote the happier they are. The system is designed to produce a weak Government. The latest Assembly elections have thrown up three major parties, none of which has gained any advantage. How can we make political or legislative progress if we cannot throw up a Government with a majority?

Mr. English: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the inventor of this system—the father of Rowland Hill, who invented the penny post—specifically designed it to increase the influence of individual personalities against parties. I am not sure whether increasing the influence of individual personalities in Northern Ireland is necessarily the solution to its problems.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is absolutely right. As I observed in the Assembly election, there were more personalities than there were parties. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that proportional representation threw up some odd

cases. It is time that people were not interested in voting for a party; they voted for a personality in a party and then proceeded to scatter their votes to the four winds, with the result that there some very funny turn-ups. The Government must realise that before any further elections in Northern Ireland are held they have to get down to the task of working out the single-member constituencies and seeing that all these things are put into operation before another election is held.
Let us consider the situation that will exist when the next Westminster election takes place. The local council elections were conducted by STV, and the Assembly elections were under the same system, but when the next Westminster election comes along electors will have to switch to the straight voting system. We are throwing confusion upon confusion. Let us not imagine that all the people who vote at polling stations in Northern Ireland are university graduates, because they are not. I believe that by causing confusion we shall bring about surprise results in the Westminster election. What will happen is anybody's guess. Therefore, I ask the Minister to try to meet us on this point and give an assurance that he will ask the Secretary of State to do something about this provision. If he cannot change the situation here tonight, I hope that he will do something to put the matter right in another place.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The debate has ranged from the Irish love of voting to Rowland Hill. It must be said that the political spectrum in Northern Ireland has been fairly well mirrored in the new Assembly. It cannot be denied that it is a fairly accurate mirror of current divergencies of view. It is also obvious that well-known individuals are at a fairly substantial advantage.

Mr. Kilfedder: What about the leader of the Alliance Party—a party to which the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) belongs—Mr. O'Neill, a well known political figure in Northern Ireland over many years, a former Minister, and all the rest of it? He did not get many votes.

Mr. Mills: He obviously is not as well known as is the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) as far as the voting tally is concerned. I thought that I was


paying the hon. Gentleman a compliment, but he seems not to have taken it in that sense.
I wish to make a point about ballot papers. The present system has produced curious freaks. The names of candidates are set out on ballot papers in alphabetical order: Adams, Butler, Cassidy, Donald, and down the list in that way. This has produced some curious results. It was shown by a fairly instant university survey taken during the local government elections that a person whose name is Adams and who finds himself at the top of the list has a substantial advantage over other members of his party who happen to come further down the list. I shall be interested to know whether the Government have any views on this peculiar situation and will give us their comment.
I was interested to know that in the constituency of Antrim, North, William Craig, the leader of Vanguard, to ensure that he was slightly above his colleague, James Craig. put his name on the ballot paper as "Bill Craig". Therefore, he appeared earlier on the ballot paper than did James Craig, which had certain tactical advantages.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In all fairness to Mr. William Craig it should be pointed out that he does sign himself as "Bill Craig". We should be absolutely fair and make that point.

Mr. Mills: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. That is not the connotation which I have seen expressed on the matter. If the hon. Gentleman assures us on the point then I gladly note it.
The point I am making still stands—that the alphabetical system seems to have some advantage. I would like to ask the Government whether, for any future occasion, there might be a better way of doing it, perhaps by drawing the names out of a hat.

Mr. English: I have heard of this point about the names being in alphabetical order but I do not know whether anyone can explain to me the situation in Belfast, West. On the first count a Unionist and a member of the SDLP were elected. If one looks at the distribution of the Unionist's surplus votes one sees that the Communist got rather more from

the Unionist than he did from the SDLP. but the Communist's name was Stewart.

Mr. Mills: I am introducing a topic which has endless ramifications and so I had better end my remarks by asking again whether the Government are giving any thought to the question whether in the future it will be better to draw the names from a hat as to the running order, rather than use an alphabetical basis.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I intervene briefly to make a number of points. The first arises particularly from what was said earlier in the heat and fury of the main debate, that the Northern Ireland Labour Party requested this system of election, that we pressed for it and that this is something for which that party should be grateful, in that it has at least one member in the Assembly——

Captain Orr: It did not do the Northern Ireland Labour Party much good.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it did not do it much good. Had there been a system of a single constituency it may not have had even one member to put its views. This is important, but it is also important to see that the Alliance Party has the number of representatives that it has, none of whom were elected by having a quota on the first count. We are seeking to find an Assembly that would represent a broad spectrum of politics in Northern Ireland rather than two huge power blocs.

Captain Orr: As a matter of record, did the Northern Ireland Labour Party recommend the STV system as once for all, or for perpetuity?

Mr. McNamara: I am not clear on that point, but they recommended the STV system. The Northern Ireland Labour Party at first represented to us that that was the system it wanted. Looking in terms of what the Government have proposed in this clause, whilst we are not wedded to any particular form of representation, be it STV, a list system, or anything else, it would nevertheless appear to be very strange if we were to start at such an early stage tinkering about with the particular form


of proportional representation or single transferable vote which we are using at the moment.
We have a system that seems to be working. It has given us a broad spectrum and enabled us not only to have moderate opinions represented but different voices and attitudes in Northern Ireland politics. We welcome this. We would have liked far more representatives of the Northern Ireland Labour Party to be elected. But that was the electors' choice and not ours, and under the single transferable vote system, regrettably, the party won only one seat. We hope it will do better at the next election.

9.15 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I must agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that the outcome of the election, whatever the voting system, reflects pretty accurately how the people of Northern Ireland feel at present.
Many of us opposed proportional representation, for different reasons. In a speech in this House I said that it would not be a panacea for the evils of Northern Ireland and that, no matter what system of elections we had, the will of the majority of the people would be reflected at the end of the day.
I was under the impression that the Northern Ireland Labour Party wanted not STV but the list system, which is nearer to proportional representation, as I understand it. Certainly in its representations to my party when the Bill was going through this House, the Northern Ireland Labour Party made it clear that it felt that the list system was a system which actually was proportional representation and that the STV system was not really proportional representation.
In any event, the people of Northern Ireland have spoken. I am sure that we are all amazed at the interesting transfer of votes, with members of the Alliance Party gaining Democratic Unionist Party votes and even Communist votes, and the SDLP finding some votes from the DUP going to it. I do not know whether many of its votes came to my party. But certainly it is a most interesting study. What is more, I think that in almost every constituency there were those who did

not reach the necessary quota. They were elected because at the end of the count they had the largest number of votes.
My view about the system is that it is definitely difficult for people going to the polls. Every party in the election was very eager to ensure that people going to polling stations had cards instructing them how the party wanted them to vote. In a place like North Antrim, where there were 18 candidates, it would have been very easy for the people to be confused. I saw a great many cards issued in the election. I stood outside one polling station where there must have been people handing out six different cards. The litter laws were broken, because a person who did not want a particular card simply threw it at his feet and stamped on it, having already made up his mind.
The people of Northern Ireland are to be congratulated on the way that they adapted themselves to the PR system. In my constituency where 72,000 people voted there were only 1,000 spoiled papers, and it was clear from many of those that people had made genuine attempts to vote for their parties but, instead of putting down 1, 2, 3 and so on, had used the old X system. Of course, in Toome, where there is a strong Republic element, there were a lot of destroyed papers. Even so, 1,000 spoiled papers out of 72,000 in a new voting system is not too bad.
The one feature of the system which I dislike is the fact that no Member has a specific geographic territory to call his own. That I feel is its great weakness. As a public representative, I find that I meet people of all shades of opinion and of all religions simply because I happen to be the Member for a specific geographical area, whereas now in North Antrim, with a spread across the board, people will be inclined to go to the representative of their party or of their religion. That is the weakness of the system.
The other thing is that one would need to have the patience of Job to continue through the count. The count in North Antrim started at 8.30 a.m. and finished at 8.30 a.m. the following day. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and myself were elected not long after the first count started. But for those who were waiting and yearning to see the


transfer of votes it was certainly an endurance test. That was so not only for the candidates but for the returning officer and his staff.
The House should be grateful to the returning officer and his staff for the way that they carried out the counts. They carried out my count with great ability. They were prepared to answer candidates' questions so that they could understand what was happening.
The weakness of the system, however, is that it removes the benefit of one particular person representing a geographical area. In all elections, the person whose name tops the ballot paper gets a certain number of votes. Even in the system operated by this House, if one is well up, the first, or even the last, one gets a few hundred votes. Ultimately, however, I do not think it alters the position.
I am opposed to the system because it destroys the link between the person and a particular geographical area. It is mostly for those reasons that I object to the system.

Mr. McMaster: I echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in congratulating the people of Northern Ireland on the way that they coped with the system of proportional representation. My constituency has an electorate of about 80,000. On polling day the electors were faced with a list of 23 names. It looked more like a betting card for the Grand National than a polling form.
If we have to have proportional representation, at least we should have much smaller constituencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said. Very large constituencies, such as mine in East Belfast, mean that each of, for example, 23 candidates is obliged to project himself in a quarter of Belfast to an electorate of about 80,000. It is an enormous job. It is impossible for the electorate, if they are to vote conscientiously, to carry in their minds, the differences between 23 people. It is impossible also for those 23 people, within the limits of publicity, time and expense, to conduct a proper campaign.
Therefore, if we are to have PR we should have not only smaller areas but also shorter lists, if possible, and people should be obliged to vote in order of

preference for the entire list. I am not as expert on this matter as is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). If people are able to plump for three or four candidates from their own party, that destroys the effect of PR.
The results of the election bear out that proposition and very much reflect the feelings in Northern Ireland. But the results did not benefit the people from small minority parties. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, said that the Labour Party has only one representative in Northern Ireland, and that only by the skin of his teeth. A well-known Labour Member—I much regretted the attack made upon him by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—deserved to come in much higher up.

Mr. Fitt: I made it quite clear that my remarks were directed towards the Labour Party and not against the individual. Mr. Vivian Simpson. I also regretted that he lost the election, but I said nothing at all about that.

Mr. McMaster: I understand why the hon. Member was not attacking Mr. Simpson, as many of the hon. Member's votes, particularly in the Ardoyne area, were drawn from Mr. Simpson's supporters.
Therefore, I should prefer the ordinary system that applies in the United Kingdom, the single-Member constituency. It maintains a much better relationship between constituents and Members. The constituents know, even if the Member belongs to the Opposition party, to whom they can go with a problem. In the case of this election, in my constituency people will have a great problem in knowing to whom to go with particular difficulties.
Secondly, if we are to have proportional representation we should have smaller constituencies, so that a good relationship is preserved; so that candidates can get around more easily and project themselves in that limited area, so that election expenses are kept within reasonable limits, and so that people who are voting have an appropriate opportunity to exercise their vote intelligently over as a large part of the list as is possible, instead of what happened in the election. I saw it for myself.
People went in with their minds already made up and voted for their own party's candidates.
The net result in Northern Ireland as a whole is arguably much the same as if there had been single-Member constituencies. This defeats the whole object of the exercise. I regret to say that, with the benefit of hindsight, I do not think this experiment, which was very expensive, has been particularly successful. I ask my hon. Friend to deal with this and to reassure the House, and those in Northern Ireland who are concerned, that the system is not immutable, that it will be considered again, and that improvements may be made.

Mr. Kilfedder: Under the local government legislation which we passed, proportional representation was a once-only venture, as far as I am aware. The Government ought to allow this amendment and leave open the question of how the next election will be held for the Assembly.
It is a matter of some regret that the members of the Assembly cannot be allowed to decide the type of system under which the next election would be conducted. They are not allowed to decide whether there should be a referendum or a border poll. Surely they could be entrusted with a decision in respect of their system of election. I find it strange that the Government can advocate PR for Northern Ireland, yet it is a system which in their opinion is not good enough for Great Britain. If it is good enough for Northern Ireland I should have thought that the Government would be able to assure the House that they will endeavour to see that it is introduced in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
I wish to pay tribute to the returning officer for North Down. I do not know about other constituencies but I saw how Mr. Worseley and his staff worked. I am waiting for the staff to write to me asking for extra pay for their arduous work! I do not know how many hon. Members watched the count in Northern Ireland, but it was clear that the staff had a difficult task and I do not think that they were paid sufficiently for the work. Certainly they should be given

full credit for the efficient way in which they carried out the count.

9.30 p.m.

One of my objections to the system of proportional representation is the way in which, according to STV, people are inclined to vote in alphabetical order, certainly for particular political parties. If one's name begins with A or B, one is far more advantaged. In my constituency, Mr. Brooke got more votes than the remaining Unionist candidates whose names began with letters further down the alphabet.

Many electors were confused. I must rely only on my own experience, but in my constituency, some electors were deliberately confused. One Unionist candidate told people that if I received too many first preference votes—he was trying to get them to vote No. 1 for him—they would put in the only Republican candidate. This was manifestly untrue, since, unless they gave their second preference votes to the Republican, he would not have benefited from my surplus. But because of the complicated system, many people believed this claim. They came to me with their concern about this matter. I was able to put it right, but it is because the system is so strange and complicated that it is possible to deceive people in this way.

Fortunately, it did not deceive many people. I was elected in North Down on the first count. The second candidate was successful on the second count, but the third candidate was not successful until the twelfth count. That took some time, and he had to wait until the following day to discover whether he would get in. The remaining four seats were filled without those candidates reaching the quota at all. The two Alliance candidates who were successful depended for their success on the transfer of votes from the Republican candidate. It is a bizarre situation in which one party can benefit from or depend indirectly for its success upon the support of another party as diametrically opposed as the SDLP ought to be to the Alliance Party——

Mr. Fitt: Mr. Fitt indicated assent.

Mr. Kilfedder: I see that the hon. Member agrees with me.
Throughout Northern Ireland the majority of the candidates were elected


without reaching their quotas. This means that the votes of those of us who got quite a number of votes on the first preference count mean no more than the votes of those who scraped home without even reaching the quota. Is that democratic? I should have thought not. Therefore, I cannot accept this sort of electoral system for Northern Ireland.
There are seven seats in my constituency. The electors will lose the close identity that they had with their Stormont Members. However, I shall continue to represent all the people in my constituency, irrespective of which part of the constituency they may live in. I never turn anyone away, but I share the opinion and the criticism expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the system means that some electors will go to those representatives who belong to the same political parties or the same creed as themselves. Constituents should go to their Member as such, and this system will contribute to further polarisation in the community. In that respect, it is bad.
I have expressed my opinion about STV. I find it unacceptable, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.

Captain Orr: We have had a fascinating debate upon the workings of the single transferable vote system and I will not labour the point further. I ask my hon. Friend whether he can show some degree of flexibility. The Government have pleaded for a flexible approach, yet it seems that on their part there is a degree of inflexibility which I had not expected. This was a point which we missed in Committee. I understood it in the same way as the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English); namely, that this would be something which would be left open for future discussion.
We are not talking simply about an Assembly election which might take place in the next six months; we are enacting legislation which will last for the foreseeable future. As I understand it, we are saying that all subsequent Assembly elections must be held under this system. I had thought that perhaps in Section 2 of the Assembly Act there was a power for the Secretary of State to make statutory instruments altering the system. I

am not a lawyer and I may be wrong, but I do not now read it in that sense.
I believe that the Bill requires an amendment along these lines if we are not to tie the hands of the Government for the foreseeable future. If my hon. Friend can tell us that between now and the passage of the Bill in another place the Government will look at this and see whethere there can be some flexibility I would be happy to let the matter go now.

Mr. David Howell: We have had a number of useful comments during the debate on practical experience in working the single transferable vote system. The effect of this amendment would be to ensure that Section 2(3) did not apply to future Assembly elections; in other words, that the single transferable vote system was no longer used.

Captain On: With respect, does it not mean that the STV system need no longer be used?

Mr. Howell: Yes, that follows. It means that there would be no provision for any system. If we were to go back to the simple majority vote system, of which a number of hon. Members have spoken with nostalgia, it would be necessary not only to delete STV from Clause 29 but to specify some other voting system in its place and to amend the Northern Ireland Assembly Act. We would have to redraw the constituency boundaries to create 78 single-Member constituencies.

Mr. Molyneaux: This was not the intention of my hon. Friends and myself. The intention was simply to leave this option open. It seems that there is provision in this Bill and the Northern Ireland Assembly Act for the Secretary of State to take wide powers to make varying arrangements for holding elections in Northern Ireland, including, in the words of the Assembly Act, provision for "the method of voting" to be employed. All we are asking is that this discretion should be preserved.

Mr. Howell: This is not quite the position. That was the position under the Northern Ireland Assembly Act which provided for only one election, that held on 28th June by virtue of the Northern Ireland Assembly Polling Day Order 1973. But in this Bill subsection (1) provides that certain sections of the


Northern Ireland Assembly Act would continue in force. Here we are dealing with Section 2(1), which provides for a single transferable vote system of proportional representation. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) questioned the use of the term. This gives effect to the decision that the single transferable vote system should be the system used in elections to the Assembly, but if it were decided that the overall system should be replaced it would not be possible to make a change by subordinate instrument. In other words, legislation would be necessary.
It is quite true that under Clause 2(5) of the Bill the Secretary of State can by order make all kinds of provisions for the conduct of the poll but I am afraid they do not include the overall system, and if my hon. Friend had that impression it was wrong. Any order that my right hon. Friend makes can provide for an election timetable, form of declaration to be made by candidates, content of nomination papers, taking of the poll, getting the votes in and counted, the procedure on the death of a candidate, procedure for election petitions and the constitution of electoral courts. This would cover the kind of points made by my hon. Friend the Member _for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) about the way nomination papers were made out, and so on. So an order could also indicate disqualifications to be imposed for corrupt and illegal practices in the election. But as far as the actual system is concerned, if one were contemplating going back to the system of single majority, legislation would be needed and this could be done.
Let no one assume that what is being said, that this means a single transferable vote system in perpetuity, is correct. All we had so far are two elections, the local elections and the Assembly elections. Obviously, it is very early days to comment in depth and draw on any deep and profound analyses of the results of the 28th June elections; but some general conclusions have been drawn by hon. Members in this debate. It was said, for example, that there was a very high poll, and that, although the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, said, or I believe I heard him murmur, that it must have given a less accurate mirror reflection than

the Pearce system for proportional representation, the system he favours, it can be said that it gave a more accurate representation and a better reflection than the single-member system. That seems to be the case at a first glance at the figures and results.
A number of hon. Members have talked of confusions and difficulties. We have been round this issue in the past in this House. Personally I did not, after the local elections, share the rather gloomy view that the complexities would confound the people of Northern Ireland, and I do not share it now after the Assembly elections. The voters of Northern Ireland may not all be graduates—to use the phrase of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)—but they are not fools, either; and the very high poll and the small proportion of spoiled papers, despite the systematic campaign of pressure to do so, demonstrates that this is a system that has not been found overall confusing, and that the precept of putting candidates in the order in which one likes them has been one which the people of Ulster have been ready to master and have mastered in very large numbers.
Coming to the question of flexibility and the future, the White Paper said in paragraph 39 that:
It has been decided that there shall be an Assembly of about 80 members, and that the system of election best suited to this occasion"—
referring to the 28th June elections—
is the single transferable vote (STV) method of proportional representation …".
Obviously, the Government had to make a judgment on this matter and they have done so, and this is reflected in the Bill now before the House. All we are saying is that this power should be preserved, that on balance, drawing on such experience as we have, we believe that this form of STV, this form of PR, is the most equitable and effective method of ensuring that persons returned to serve in the Northern Ireland Assembly genuinely and individually represent the electorate.

9.45 p.m.

It is quite possible—although I must confess that at present, because these are rather early days, I should have thought it unlikely—that when the experiment of proportional representation


has been fairly and fully tried it may be necessary to modify the system or change it altogether. What it would be wrong to do is to assume either that we can now scrap the whole STV system and leave ourselves without any legislative framework to ensure that there is a system of voting or that the Government are totally inflexible on the matter and deny that there may be any need for change. We do not deny that. There may well be such a need, but the need for change and the extent of that change can be judged only in the light of experience. It is premature to make any change now. It would be wrong—indeed, it would be foolhardy—for the Government to put themselves in a position where they had no legislation to provide for a system within which voting could take place and on the basis of which my right hon. Friend could make the necessary orders.

If there were to be a change, it would be a major change. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, it would be to risk piling confusion on change, rushing into yet a further change for the people of Ulster before we have had time to judge what is before us. It would have to be planned very carefully, and obviously would take a good deal of time, possibly many months. The proposition that we should rush into a further change must be one that we should consider with great hesitation.

Mr. English: I do not think that anyone is disputing any of the points the Minister has so far made. The real question is whether the Government should pin themselves to being able to make any change only by another Bill. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would answer my point. Is he, as I think we all understood from the Secretary of State's remarks on the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill, going to make it possible to have a change—perhaps to a simpler PR system, because none could be more complicated than the present system—simply by an order with the approval of the House?

Mr. Howell: The Government's view is that to proceed on that basis would be wrong. We must have legislation on the statute book providing a system. My right hon. Friend has said that there is no

reason for not changing if at a suitable time it is felt that a change should be made. But to go on from there and imply that any assurance was given that we could hop by order after order from one system to another was piling too much on the assurance given by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Maginnis: Surely the overwhelming majority in this country and in Northern Ireland favour the single vote which we use in normal elections in this country? Why on earth the Government should go to all the trouble to change the system is beyond me and everybody else.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is opening up wider issues, which are hardly raised by the amendment, as to why the idea of proportional representation was introduced into Northern Ireland. We have had many debates on the matter, many of them turning on whether it is true to say that conditions in Northern Ireland are exactly the same as they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or whether, using the evidence of our eyes, we can say that conditions are different and that the requirements to make the political system work are different. It is the Government's view that they are different, and that is why PR in this form was introduced. That it has been introduced in the single transferable vote form is the fact before us; and the Government feel that it should be embodied in legislation. If my hon. Friends or hon. Gentlemen opposite ask whether that means no change ever, the answer is "Of course not". It would be absurd to use the word "never" in this context.

Mr. English: It is the nearest that one can come to it in English law. It is a breach of an assurance.

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a further intervention, let him stand up and make it. I am saying that the matter is in the Bill. The Government are not inflexible.

Mr. English: Mr. English rose——

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman wants to say it again.

Mr. English: At the time that that assurance was given a Bill was before us which created a system for one election. The Secretary of State then used the


phrase, which both the hon. Gentleman and I have quoted, that it would be possible to change it if, at an appropriate time, such a change was desirable. This imposes the maximum rigidity that English law can impose, and it seems to me that that was not the implication of that assurance.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman takes one view, and I must take another. I believe it to be right that my right hon. Friend said what he did, that there was no reason for not changing at a suitable time if it was felt that a change should be made. The Government had to come to a judgment on the matter, having brought forward the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill. The judgment had to be that it would be a dereliction of duty for a system to be given statutory force for the future. If, as a result of looking back on these two elections, it is found that there are disadvantages which outweigh the benefits, it will be possible to make changes. That is the fact of the matter, and I cannot see that there has been any dire deviation from the commitments made by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friends about the way in which elections should be conducted.
I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree, and that he is a considerable expert in this matter, particularly in the complexities of PR, and he feels that STV is not the purest form, but he must face——

Mr. McMaster: My hon. Friend said that conditions are different in Northern Ireland. Am I right in paraphrasing him and saying that his view is that the most desirable system is that which we have in this country, namely, single-member constituencies, but because of the peculiar conditions in Northern Ireland we must have something that is slightly less desirable; in other words, that we have to make some concession to the pressures prevailing in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend will not be surprised if I say that he is wrong in paraphrasing in that way what I said. I think that he knows that very well.
I come back to the main point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, and it must be right. It

would be wrong to rush into law further changes and tinker with a system that has been tried twice and produced remarkably high polls, and for which there have been certain benefits that will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members.
I do not believe that there has been overwhelming confusion. We may have a certain amount to learn in the details, and there is flexibility in the way in which my right hon. Friend can make future orders for the conduct of the poll, but, by and large, it would be wrong at this stage to start talking of changing the whole statutory framework within which future elections for the Assembly in Northern Ireland should be conducted. I believe that it would be wrong for my hon. and gallant Friend to press the amendment, and I must ask him to withdraw it.

Captain Orr: One could, of course, take what the hon. Gentleman said——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member going to make another speech? If so, he needs the leave of the House.

Captain Orr: By leave of the House, may I just explain what I propose should be done about the amendment? I could, as I was saying, argue with the hon. Gentleman about his reasons. All I would say is that we regret that he cannot meet the spirit of the amendment. However, since the amendment, as he said, would leave us with no system written in at all I could not advise my hon. Friends to vote for it. On the other hand, to mark the fact that I am not satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's failure to meet the spirit of it I feel that it cannot be withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 31

ABOLITION OF PARLIAMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 23, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
'(1) (a) If the Secretary of State shall make an order under section 2 of this Act (appointing a day for the commencement of Part II


of this Act) the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall cease to exist;
(b) if the Secretary of State does not make such an Order before the expiry of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act then on the expiry of that Act the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall be dissolved and fresh elections held'.
When I tabled this amendment I did not apprehend that we would have so long a debate upon the first amendment we had today or the long debate on Clause 1. A good deal of what I would have said on this amendment has already been said and I do not want to go over all the ground again.
The purpose of the amendment is to do one thing only, and that is to provide for the contingency—a possible contingency, I think—that Part II of the Bill might never come into effect at all. In other words, I am providing for a situation where the Secretary of State fails to get the conditions required under Clause 2 for the formation of the Executive and for the devolution of powers, for the situation where the Assembly comes to an end and the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act itself runs out.
One could do two things if that were to happen. One could either go back to the situation before direct rule—in other words, one could let the Temporary Provisions Act lapse and go back to the situation as it was before—or one could simply go back to the Temporary Provisions Act itself and be back to direct rule again.
I am using this amendment to argue that it might be possible—and there ought to be the option—to go back to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) just now appeared to be in some horror at the thought of going back to the old régime, and it might be argued that that is what the amendment is saying. That would not be true, because a great deal has happened in Northern Ireland since the prorogation of Stormont. The whole edifice involved in what are called the Macrory reforms has come into being; the new district councils have been elected; the Housing Authority is in being. All these various reforms have already taken place.
My amendment would require the dissolution of the Parliament of Northern

Ireland and the holding of fresh elections. So if the Assembly itself were to fail, if the whole edifice were to collapse, the amendment would provide an option to the Secretary of State to bring back the Parliament of Northern Ireland and require fresh elections for it.
However, I am not intending to make heavy weather of the point. The purpose of proposing the amendment is simply to make that point, to make anew the argument we had on Clause 1. That was a very wide-ranging debate, and I do not propose to pursue this amendment at very great length now.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am sure that the Secretary of State does not contemplate failure in establishing the Assembly and bringing into existence an Executive which will work. Nevertheless, I would have thought that something on these lines would be prudent in the difficult situation he faces, and I hope he will consider the amendment favourably.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill may he proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I shall be brief. have noted carefully what my hon. Friends have said, and the effects of the amendment are clear.
To carry the amendment would mean that there would be a reversion to government by Stormont as soon as direct rule expired. Of course, that would fly in the face of everything that we are trying to do. The Government would never have brought forward these proposals if they had not thought it right to have a change and a new start. The House has shown its clear desire in giving the Bill a Second Reading. The White Paper clearly spells out the facts. I shall not, therefore, delay the House. I must ask it to resist the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 32

ABOLITION OF OFFICE OF GOVERNOR AND PROVISIONS AS TO PRIVY COUNCIL OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 23, line 46, at end insert:
'(4) The senior holder of the office of Her Majesty's Lieutenant in Northern Ireland shall be designated Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant of Northern Ireland and shall carry out such functions in the absence of Her Majesty as Her Majesty may determine'.
On Second Reading much mention was made of the Governor of Northern Ireland. I moved an amendment and I tabled others for the retention of his office. In so doing I voiced the bitter resentment of thousands of Ulster folk of different denominations and opinions—a resentment that is shared by British people on this side of the Irish Sea. I established that a Governor and a Secretary of State could co-exist, as did the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary before partition. My right hon. Friend remained adamant. This rather distressed my hon. Friends and myself but we did not think that the will of Parliament would be anticipated, or appear to be anticipated, by the sudden departure of the Governor from his post.
Until Royal Assent is signified to the Bill the office of Governor continues and continues to be held. I suppose, by its present holder, Lord Grey. I should like to ask, before proceeding to the subject matter of the amendment, whether His Excellency is now on leave, what are the arrangements for the discharge of his office in his absence and who is now acting—and, if the Bill reaches the statute book, who will act—as keeper of the Great Seal of Northern Ireland? I can assure the Irish Times whose representative conjectured whether cruelty to animals legislation might be invoked, that this is a matter of high constitutional moment. I hope that we might have a reply from my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend made one pleasing gesture in replying in Committee. I do not have the words before me and they are not easily obtainable, but he referred to the position of Her Majesty's lieutenants and deputy lieutenants of counties in Ulster. We have tabled an

amendment that follows from the hint dropped by my right hon. Friend. The amendment reads:
The senior holder of the office of Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant in Northern Ireland shall be designated Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant of Northern Ireland and shall carry out such functions in the absence of Her Majesty as Her Majesty may determine.
In other amendments it was proposed that the Lord Lieutenant should hold viceregal office in Northern Ireland and might perform ceremonial functions that the Secretary of State would clearly not wish to perform, carry out certain duties in connection with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and be responsible for the appointment of certain non-political offices. All those matters could be brought within the purview of a Lord Lieutenant such as is suggested in the amendment.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel sympathetic to what we are trying to do. If he does, that would do something to heal the hurt which has been inflicted by the deprivation of the traditional, direct and personal representation of the Monarch.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I support the amendment that has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). Perhaps the House is not aware of the deep feeling in Northern Ireland about the removal of the Governor. I do not go along with those who say that the Governor should be kept just as a figurehead. The Governor had an important part to play in the constitution of Northern Ireland, in that we had a Parliament, a Senate and a Commons, and the Governor acted as the representative of the Queen. The Queen's Ministers in Northern Ireland, in consultation with the Government, formed the Privy Council of Northern Ireland.
There should be a personal representative of Her Majesty the Queen in Northern Ireland. The amendment, in many ways, meets the wishes of a vast section of the people of Northern Ireland. It is only right that there should be someone of a non-political character to fill the vacuum.
I know that the Government have argued that Her Majesty or members of the Royal Family may or will visit


Northern Ireland. Those of us who know the reality of the situation, and the reality of security, know that the only place, for security reasons where even members of the Assembly could meet would probably be at Stormont. We cannot see Her Majesty or members of the Royal Family visiting Northern Ireland in the near future. If it were proposed by the Government that such a visit should take place there would be indignation that members of the Royal Family might be put at risk.
The amendment meets a need and fills a vacuum. Not only that, it helps to heal a deep wound that has been inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State, in a short term of office, knows very well the feelings of the people. I do not think that any other Minister could have cottoned on so quickly to the reactions of the people. I commend the amendment to the House. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to accept it, after the Bill has gone through another place lie may consider whether something on the lines of the amendment should be put into the Bill.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the security situation and visits from a member of the Royal Family. Obviously, I have particular responsibility for the security situation. I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not think that the people of Northern Ireland and members of the Royal Family would take the hon. Gentleman's view. I think it would be possible for such a visit to take place. The Royal Family are extremely anxious that it should be possible.
I now turn to the matters which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I shall not go back over the arguments which we have had about the office of Governor. My hon. Friend has made his point, and I fully appreciate the arguments which have been put forward. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North has said, I know the feelings which have been aroused and understand them.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) asked me whether the possibility of having a chief lieutenant in Northern Ireland had been considered. I told him that I

had no doubt that the possibility could be considered, but I pointed out that it was for Her Majesty to decide and that it would be wrong for me to express a view. I added that I knew of nothing constitutionally against such a course but the matter did not come within the ambit of the Bill. That still holds true.
The discharge of Her Majesty's functions in Northern Ireland, as in any other part of the United Kingdom, is a matter for the Queen herself. She appoints her lieutenants in Northern Ireland for the counties. They are non-political appointments and, equally, they are the people who can and, in my judgment, should, carry out the ceremonial functions previously carried out by the Governor. it is for Her Majesty to decide whether she would wish to appoint one of the lieutenants above the others. I understand that it would be possible for her to do so. She can at any time decide that some particular ceremonial function will be carried out by one of the lieutenants or, indeed, by others. It is basically for her to decide how she would wish this to be carried out.
It would, therefore, be wrong to express such a position in the Bill. I am advised that it would not be right. It is a prerogative matter. The Queen herself appoints her lieutenants to the counties, and if she so wished there is no doubt that it would be appropriate for her to decide that one of her lieutenants was senior to the others.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As Secretary of State, could not the right hon. Gentleman advise Her Majesty upon such an appointment?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not off the cuff wish to comment on the precise constitional position, but, equally, I know very well that the arguments put forward in the debate can be communicated and will certainly be studied. It would be wrong for me to go further than that.
The lieutenants for the counties in Northern Ireland are appointed by the Queen as her representatives in those counties, as they are in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I hope that now that there is no longer a governor, following the passage of the Bill, they will discharge the ceremonial functions as is appropriate. I hope that they will be asked to do so, and I know that they will be ready and anxious so to do. That is the right way to proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell asked about the office of Governor and the position of Lord Grey. The office continues until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Lord Grey's commission was revoked as from 30th June. I shall have to take advice about the Keeper of the Great Seal, and I will let my hon. Friend know the answer.
I think I have shown the anxiety of the Government that the lieutenants should carry out the ceremonial functions. They are appointed by Her Majesty, and I believe that to be the right position. The question of whether one should be designated above the others is for Her Majesty to decide when she comes to make up her mind about how functions should be discharged in Northern Ireland. I undertake that this short debate will be communicated to those concerned, and I hope that with that assurance my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I can hardly wait for the information about the Keeper of the Great Seal. I have no wish to trespass on the Royal Prerogative in any way, and, responding to the manner in which my right hon. Friend has spoken, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38

POWER TO LEGISLATE BY ORDER IN COUNCIL FOR CERTAIN MATTERS RELATING TO NORTHERN IRELAND

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in Page 26, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert:
'(a) elections (but not the franchise) and boundaries in respect of local authorities in Northern Ireland;'

In Committee objection was taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to the scope of the clause in that it enabled us to deal not only with minor matters concerning local government elections but also with certain major matters. I undertook to try to meet this point.
The issue concerned the franchise. We have removed the franchise from the clause to meet that objection. I think that goes even further than the undertakings I gave, because in Committee I was not sure that I should be able to meet the point. On that basis, I hope the House will accept the amendment.

Captain Orr: I accept that my right hon. Friend has done what he said he would do, and I hope that the House will approve the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

EXCEPTED MATTERS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to move Amendment No. 27, in page 31, line 37, leave out from 'therewith' to end of line 5 on page 32.

Captain Orr: As we have had some discussion on the main subject of the amendment in Committee and as on Third Reading we shall be able to discuss relationships with the Irish Republic, I prefer not to move the amendment.

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 44, line 35, column 3, leave out '(1)' and insert '(2)'.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have given our general support to the Bill. We wish it well and realise the difficulties that face the Government and the Secretary of State.
Since last Thursday there has been a great change. There are now 78 Assembly members. Criticism has been made of the single transferable vote system, but it has enabled differences in the Unionist Party to be revealed. I do not glory in this, but it is a fact of life. The Alliance Party has emerged, and the SDLP, which was a small party, seems to have replaced the old Nationalist Party which had been in existence for many years—in its present form since the First World War.
Whether the White Paper approach from the rest of the United Kingdom works depends largely upon the 78 members who represent the people of Northern Ireland. We shall just have to see what emerges. All I know is that there is not another road to another poll via Darlington after long discussions.
The Opposition regard power sharing as crucial. We realise it is difficult, but some way must be found to get the communities in Northern Ireland working together. We must remember that not all who oppose the Unionists are rebels. The single transferable vote has given rise to a relatively small but meaningful number of Alliance Party members, but they certainly are not rebels.
I hope that the Bill will go through its remaining stages very quickly. I hope that Part II will be activated quickly. There is now a political momentum. There is not by any means more than a balanced argument that the approach made from this House will succeed. I make it clear that this is our wish and our hope. It has been our major aim that the White Paper approach of the Government and the Secretary of State shall succeed.

10.20 p.m.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) throughout the passage of this Bill has spoken with great earnestness and moderation. I am sorry that I cannot share his enthuse-

iasm for the Bill, but I recognise the sincerity of his approach.
Before we leave the measure, I wish to put on record on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself how much we have appreciated the patience and courtesy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his handling of the Bill and also the courtesy of his Ministers. This has not been an easy matter for them. We have not sought to obstruct or delay the Bill in any way, because we recognise that the Mouse having approved the White Paper against our advice and also having given the Bill a Second Reading against our advice, it would have been irresponsible of us to seek to frustrate the will of the House, particularly in view of the urgency of the situation.
Throughout its consideration we have sought to point to what we considered were the Bill's essential defects, the things which in our view would make it wholly unworkable. We adhere to the view we have taken throughout. We can at least say that we pointed to the essential unworkability of the Bill at every stage of its passage ad before the Assembly was elected. Therefore, we were not talking with hindsight. I do not propose to go over again the arguments in respect of unworkability.
We in this House wish the Secretary of State well. If I am wrong in my view about this legislation and if some kind of settlement can be produced which will bring peace to the people of Northern Ireland, while securing their citizenship within the United Kingdom, I would be the first to be happy. But I do not believe that this can happen. When the House of Commons passes this measure tonight and when eventually it receives Royal Assent, I cannot see that one human life will be saved as a result of it. I believe that the evil forces which are at work must be defeated first before we can see any kind of settlement. However I do not want to pursue that argument.
It has been said that this is the last chance for Ulster, with the implication that something dire will befall us if this measure does not work. There is almost an implicit threat when people say, "If you are perverse and if you do not between yourselves work this system


which we have imposed upon you against your will"—this system of regional government or whatever one likes to call it—"we shall do something dreadful to you, we shall possibly deprive you of your citizenship within the United Kingdom, or we shall do this and that".
I was delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Leeds, South said. I was especially pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do what I expected him to do, saying that Her Majesty's Government's word meant what it said, and that when the Government said to the people of Northern Ireland, "You will remain part of the United Kingdom and you will not be driven out of the United Kingdom except by your own consent," Her Majesty's Government meant that.
If her Majesty's Government mean it and if the official Opposition mean it, I take it that this Parliament means what it says. If Parliament says to the people of Northern Ireland, "Your citizenship is assured so long as it has your consent," Parliament cannot therefore use the deprivation of citizenship as a threat if we do not manage to work this unworkable Assembly which has been forced upon us.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On the subject of pledges, the Bill is the Bill is the Bill. But the Bill is not only Clause 1. The Bill contains a large number of clauses.

Captain Orr: I very much appreciate that. The hon. Gentleman has made the point before that the Bill is the Bill. But if the Bill lapses and if Part II is not brought into effect, what happens then? We are back to the Temporary Provisions Act, and no doubt ultimately that Act will run out. We are then back to something else. But I hope that this House of Commons will confirm that what we are not back to is Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom. That is not what we are back to.
If pledges mean anything, Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom so long as it is the wish of her people so to remain. So let it be plain that that is not a threat which is held over the people of Northern Ireland. The threat may be that they will never get

any form of self-government, that they will be treated like the subjects of a colony, that they will never have fair and just representation in this House. There may be all kinds of threats like that. But one threat must be an empty threat, and that is that the people of Northern Ireland shall cease to be part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Orme: May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are people on his side in Ulster who have just fought an election in which they have advocated a UDI for Ulster. I am thinking of Mr. Craig and people of that character. Therefore does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that there is not an open mandate for him and his hon. Friends to do as they please? Each Parliament is sovereign. Although the pledge that we have given on our side stands, nevertheless it does not stand for all time without qualification.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman has referred to people who are on my side and who favour unilateral declaration of independence for Northern Ireland. Anyone who favours that is not on my side. Let me make that perfectly plain. I am a Unionist. For all the foreseeable future, for my lifetime and that of my children, I hope that Northern Ireland will remain firmly part of the United Kingdom. Anyone who advocates something else is not on my side. What some advocate, though—and this is a different thing—is that if Northern Ireland be driven out of the United Kingdom and if the choice were then joining an Irish Republic or being independent, one would settle for being independent. But that is not preferring that to the Union.

Mr. Orme: I am not trying to be unfair or to score debating points, but I can remember, in the not-too-distant past, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Mr. William Craig were on the same platform advocating a policy for Ulster. I remember seeing the three of them together on television. I accept what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, but he must recognise that some of us saw these things for ourselves.

Captain Orr: Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening as well as


looking he would have heard the things upon which we were agreed. We attempted to ascertain the things upon which what is loosely called the loyalist community in Ulster were agreed. Nothing in what we said then had anything to do with an independent Ulster. If the hon. Gentleman looks at what we said he will find nothing like that. I would not have been a party to it had that been so.
I am a Unionist. I believe in Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom. I also believe in the sovereignty of this House of Commons so long as one is a member of the United Kingdom. So long as one is part of the United Kingdom, one accepts the sovereignty of Parliament. Although Parliament is about to give a Third Reading to a bad Bill, I will certainly not support anyone who operates outside the law.
On the other hand, I will not be a party to saying that the legislation means more than it says. As I argued earlier, it does not say that people must cooperate in an Executive with people with whom they politically disagree.
Let me make perfectly plain what I mean. Hon. Members of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believe that there is some kind of solution in power sharing. When I say that power sharing is inherently impossible, I am not talking in sectarian terms.
When we talk about the two communities in Ulster there is often a great difference of opinion about what we mean by "the two communities". If we are talking about two communities differing from each other in religion, I believe that there is every possibility in the future of people of differing religions working together.
The ballot is secret. I believe that often a great many Roman Catholics will vote Unionist, as I believe that they have done in the past. It may very well be that Protestants have voted for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I do not believe that, in a broad sense, the religious division necessarily coincides with the political division, or will do so in the future. Therefore, when I say that power sharing does not or will not work, I am not talking in sectarian terms.
I believe that it is possible for Protestants and Roman Catholics to work to-

gether for the future of Ulster. What I do not believe is possible is the formation of an Executive of people of deeply differing political views about their own nationality. There cannot be a coalition between those who wish to preserve the State and those who wish ultimately to destroy it.
Of course I wish the Secretary of State well. No one would be more pleased than I if this extraordinary affair worked. But I believe that it will not. I shall certainly not advise my hon. Friends to do anything that will contribute to the failure—I almost said "unworkability" again—of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said earlier, we shall have to come back again looking for something else. I do not believe that this measure is permanent.
Although we shall divide against the Third Reading, one thing that we are all united about is that no one—on either side of the House, I hope—will be a party to any solution brought about by violent means. The elections have shown that the Ulster people agree on that. We are determined to support the Forces of Her Majesty and the forces of law and order. We want to return to peaceful methods. The fact that we do not believe that this is the proper way to do it does not mean that we do not want to see peaceful methods employed or that we do not all reject out of hand any violent method of influencing the future.
Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy throughout. We will oppose the Third Reading, but we shall do so out of a deep conviction that this is the wrong way to deal with the situation.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have brought to bear in constructing this Bill sincerity, enthusiasm, dedication and a genuine, heartfelt desire to see it make a contribution to peace in Northern Ireland. I wish that I could share their enthusiasm and sincerity. I am afraid that I do not. I believe that the Bill is doomed to failure before it is even on the statute book. It is an unworkable constitutional proposal. As the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has said, this Parliament, or perhaps its successor, will have to deal with this problem again.
It is one of the tragedies that the Government and the Opposition have not faced the realities of the situation and dealt with it. Until we remove the prop of membership of the United Kingdom from Northern Ireland, we will not enable the communities there to face the realities of life and to begin to co-operate in whatever future they determine they want for Northern Ireland.
I am sorry that there are so few hon. Members in the House for the Third Reading of this Bill. I am particularly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) is not in his place, because it is no good standing up in this Chamber uttering mealy-mouthed tributes to the British Army for the tasks it undertakes on behalf of this Parliament, on the orders of this Government, and not being here to record one's vote one way or the other on this issue.
We are asking as a nation, the Government are ordering, men to go and die in Northern Ireland for this constitution. Yet this Parliament is hardly occupied by hon. Members to vote for or against this Bill. That is a disgrace which borders on an insult to those brave men whom we send to uphold the laws we pass. I am sorry that we cannot wish the Bill fair weather. I wish it were within a chance of being successful. I wish we could avoid the tragedy that will continue to unfold in Ireland. I wish we could avoid the continuing bloodshed that is inevitable because the Government and my party have decided that they will try to make the unworkable work.
I will vote against this Bill for reasons different from those held by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and some of his hon. Friends. I will vote against it because I believe that I speak with the voice of the majority of the British people. I challenge the Secretary of State if he says that is not so, to allow this country to express its views in a plebiscite or election on this issue of the future relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I do not know why the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) thinks that

he has this special revelation of the mind of the British people. My impression of the views of the British people on this difficult problem is different from his, but I do not claim to speak on behalf of the British people as a whole. I can only put my point of view conscientiously.
The first thing I want to do, because I doubt whether we will have a funeral oration from the Treasury Bench, is to pay a tribute to the parliament which is to be abolished by this Parliament in this Bill. I do not know whether the absent hon. Members to whom the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford referred are aware of the sense of humiliation and loss which was felt in Northern Ireland—yes, by Nationalists as well as by Unionists who had been working this parliamentary system—when it was swept away. It might have been more consonant with Conservative philosophy, with a Conservative administration, if it had sought to build on established foundations, to improve rather than to slay this daughter of the Mother of Parliaments.
With all its blemishes and faults the Stormont system upheld the Northern Ireland State from its inception for half a century. It upheld the frontier of the United Kingdom and enabled Britain to win the Battle of the Atlantic. It contended with problems and prejudices, the depth of which were only brought home to Government Ministers and to this House when, without my vote, and against my voice, direct rule was imposed on the Six Counties. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very fairly said, if we now say that Stormont was oppressive, that it discriminated unjustly against sections of the population, why was it that we had nothing to say in those days?
But the result of the imposition of direct rule was that politics descended from the Senate and the House of Commons to the streets and to the gutter. Private armies multiplied. Terrorism and protection racketeering ceased to be an IRA monopoly. And the end is not yet.
The unappeasable were not appeased when the Government complied with the first demand of the Provisionals, the abolition of Stormont—abolition was the predictable sequel to prorogation despite what was said by my right hon. Friend


the Prime Minister at the time, which has been quoted in the House today.
We have heard it said on both sides that the settlement of Northern Ireland must be made by Ulstermen in Ulster. Therefore, I welcome at least the recognition accorded in the Bill to the need to bring direct rule to an end. Self-government must be given back to Northern Ireland.
Perhaps because we must on no account confess that we have taken the wrong turning, everything must be done in a very complicated way, in different forms, by complicated stages. The nomenclature of tradition is eschewed. The old parliamentary trappings are cut away. It is a strange reflection that if we proceed as we are proceeding we may find more of British tradition and prescription and parliamentary methods south of the border than in Northern Ireland.
All this is harmful to moderation in the Unionist ranks, as harmful as all the hectoring and lecturing of Ulster:—"This is your last chance. Nanny will give notice. We will not put up with this any longer"—that we have heard particularly from the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), neither of whose attendance at these debates has been particularly long or memorable. I was very sorry to see a former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland join in this chorus. It all does harm to what we are trying to achieve, which is the bringing forward of moderate men to positions of responsibility, giving them confidence in themselves and helping them gain the confidence of their fellow countrymen.
But I live in hopes that the flexibility to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly gives importance will in the end lead to the revival in Northern Ireland of many of the parliamentary traditions of half a century. That will be very important in connection with the Council of All-Ireland. I do not share all the misgivings of some of my hon. Friends. I believe that it is part of official Unionist policy to enter an All-Ireland Council. The fears felt in Northern Ireland that perhaps it is just a stepping stone to a united Ireland can best be removed if the Assembly, the Executive and the institutions of Northern

Ireland are given responsibility, power, authority and dignity, so that the representatives of the North can sit on equal terms with the representatives of the South, without fear of the erosion of their sovereignty and those British characteristics which they value.
I will conclude on what matters most. The White Paper rightly spoke of the primacy of ending violence. With other hon. Members on both sides, I was privileged to tour in the Province at the time of the recent Assembly elections. People of different opinions said "Once we have an Assembly, once the electorate of Northern Ireland have been able to send their representatives to it, once they have shown by their votes that they utterly repudiate terrorism, then Her Majesty's Government should be able to proceed with the utmost ruthlessness with the support of the people of Northern Ireland against those who disturb their peace."
It is often glibly said that there can be no military solution without a political solution. Perhaps it is even truer to say that there can be no political solution without a military solution. Without victory over the IRA and the extinction of all terrorism, there can be no lasting solution.
Her Majesty's Armed Forces, including the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and all the services of the Crown and of the community in Northern Ireland display magnificent physical courage. We in this place owe it to them to show political and moral courage to sustain them in what they must now do unflinchingly to bring bloodshed to an end.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. English: It is because we have been accustomed for so long to having a unitary State that we are not very good at creating federal structures. The remarks of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) almost gave one to believe that the Northern Ireland Parliament was an ancient creation of this country.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It has been there for half a century.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman now says that it has been there for half a century, which in the context of British


and Irish history is not very long. When we created it, we did so as a sort of autonomous area, but we did not do what is done in most federal States—in the United States or in Germany. We did not provide it with much of the apparatus that it needs in order to preserve it as part of the United Kingdom.
We did not, for example, set up a Bill of Rights preserving to different individuals the rights which they ought to have—something that was embodied in the American Constitution almost at the time of its inception. Indeed, I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would now say that we did not necessarily ensure that even its electoral system was entirely democratic in all parts of the country. And so it failed.
I do not think that I should use his form of words, but I must admit that I share the doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). I was just thinking of the short exchange that I had with the Minister during the Report stage. The hon. Gentleman said that the assurance given to me by the Secretary of State during the debate on the Assembly Bill that there could be a change in the electoral system was carried out by Clause 29, even though that clause says that it must be a STV system, because, he said, the clause can always be changed by an Act of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman does not need to use the words that he did to some of my hon. Friends about hectoring and lecturing Northern Ireland. It needs a change of mind by only four hon. Members for Clause 1 to be changed. I am not attempting to lecture anybody in Northern Ireland. It is a fact that an amendment to Clause 1 was lost today by a narrow majority. It is a fact, too, that this House could change its mind at any time in relation not only to Clause 29 but also to Clause 1, with all that that implies. I am not suggesting that it should, but people are not lecturing the people of Northern Ireland when they say that that is a fact. There is nothing immutable in this.
As I said the other day, if I were to introduce a Bill saying that Nottingham should remain part of the United King-

dom unless it were to decide otherwise, it would be laughed at, and rightly. The reason Clause 1 has to be stated at all is that matters are in doubt. Otherwise, it would not be there. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) may regret the fact, but he recognises that it is a fact that the matter is in some doubt.
I hope that this Bill will be successful. Like my hon. Friends, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford, I do not propose, therefore, to vote against it. I would at the most only be cautiously optimistic. I have grave doubts whether this Bill is not yet another of the innumerable legislative pieces of paper which this House over centuries has showered upon Ireland.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Over the last 15 months this House has been groping for some form of new constitutional proposals to put before the people of Northern Ireland. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that I spoke and voted in favour of the White Paper and of the constitutional Bill proposals. I still believe that those proposals are right. I re-echo that this evening. I believe it is right to go for a new structure in Northern Ireland, and this structure, while in no way perfect, is probably the best structure for balancing—I emphasise this—the aims and aspirations of the two communities.
Now the people have spoken and we have the new Assembly. I do not wish to play the rôle of Cassandra, but if one is to be realistic it would be foolish and would deceive the House to say other than I do not think the omens particularly good. However, one hopes that the Assembly will find its own solution. It is up to it to do so. This House has given and should give it all encouragement in that task.
Much gloom and despondency has been shown about the Bill by many here. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has consistently throughout said it is unworkable. One respects his viewpoint, but I have yet to hear of a better framework to balance the interests of the two communities. I remind the House that I felt that the Government had gone for too loose an arrangement in the Bill and that it


would have been better to have gone for a tighter arrangement on power sharing, and to have had a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland on the proposals and then proceed on the basis of elections for an Assembly to work these proposals.
Perhaps it was hoping for too much that the results would be other than they were in an election campaign with as flexible a set of procedures as this. It is wise to remind oneself that for four years the people of Northern Ireland have suffered a latent civil war situation, and in the circumstances it was perhaps inevitable that the sectarian differences should have been deeply emphasised in the elections.
As the House will know—and perhaps I may express a personal note here—I have gone through a difficult period in the last six to 12 months, trying to face up to our new problems. Anyone who has gone through these kinds of difficulties knows the pain of parting with friends, but I believe deeply that there was a need, against the background of the White Paper proposals, for a centre to emerge in Northern Ireland.
I would not have said that a centre had failed to emerge, but it has not broken through in any spectacular way and one is disappointed. I tried to get Brian Faulkner to embrace a realistic policy rather than go towards lunatic proposals, in his Blueprint that led to nowhere. One tried to get him to face the challenge of Vanguard, but he has in the election paid the penalty of trying to face in three directions at the same time.
One would have wished for a wider group of independent Unionists, Alliance and Northern Ireland Labour Party to come together to provide a centre. However, the narrow doctrinaire views of some people prevented that, and all one can say with sadness is that this wider group did not result. One has given one's support to the Alliance Party, and it has made a modest start but it would be foolish to disguise from the House that it has been disappointing that there was a failure to grasp the full potential which there might have been in its campaign. There has been too much negative bashing of other parties and a failure to project positive attitudes, a failure to

grasp the opportunity to make a wider impact on the electorate.
That is all in the past and one comes finally to the obstacles which one recognises in the task the new Assembly will face. We have had reiteration on television and radio in the last few days from politicians of varying degrees of sectarianism saying "Of course we will talk". What does it mean? Does it mean something or is it just chatter?
The problems are great and the House would fool itself if it did not recognise the major problems of power sharing. There are those who believe that it is basically wrong and will not partake and those who pay lip service but do not face the reality, and the problems of achieving an Executive which is acceptable; the problems of finding an acceptable Chief Executive; the problems of the police and of a Council of Ireland. Is the latter, as some wish, to lead to a united Ireland or is it, as some believe, basically wrong, or should it, as others believe, act on a functionary basis?
There are some who say: "Yes we will take part in an Executive, but not until there are tripartite talks." There are those who take what I believe to be the correct view, that we should form the Executive first and have talks later.
These are the problems which have to be faced but there is no point in making this a wake. One should end by saying that the weight of responsibility has shifted from this House to the shoulders of the Secretary of State, and. as one of my lion. Friends said a few minutes ago, he is perhaps the one member of the Government who has "caught on" to the Northern Ireland situation and the problems and understand better than anyone else on the Front Bench could. One wishes him well in facing his Byzantine difficulties.
One wishes the new members of the Assembly well in the problems they have to face, particularly the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Both have heavy responsibilities and one wishes that they will be able to rise to the situation and bring Northern Ireland through this difficult period.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. David James: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the


Member for Belfast, North (Mr Stratton Mills) because he has taken a courageous view over the last 15 sad months. When I was motoring around the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) I was stopped art two polling stations and asked revealing questions. One elderly voter asked me why I thought it right that we should legislate in such a way that if they had done the same thing to us my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would have been compelled to have the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party in his Cabinet.
At another polling station someone asked me why it was that the Westminster Parliament was trying to impose majority rule en a reluctant Southern Rhodesia while denying it to Northern Ireland. Many people in Ulster will probably echo those questions. The answer is that in both cases Parliament in Westminster is trying to promote a form of power sharing in non-Westminster conditions. That is the common strand of those two entirely different exercises.
The thing which my hon. Friends in Northern Ireland so frequently rail to see is that although they were given the Parliament of Stormont complete with Speaker's chair, wig and mace and Serjeant at Arms, they never really had democracy on the Westminster model. We in Westminster know that sooner or later the Government in power will run out of ideas and that the Opposition might devise some fresh ideas at some unforeseeable moment in the future. When such a time comes power will be placed into their hands. That is how we conduct power sharing here, and a periodic change of Government is the only way to run things on Westminster lines.
If the Labour Party had been in opposition for 50 years as have been the supporters of the SDLP even they would have been militant. We cannot envisage democracy without the possibility of change. That leads me to the obvious conclusion, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has said, that there is no alternative. For that reason this set-up must work. None of the factors which led to the setting up of Stormont exists any longer. I am

referring now to the tragic years between 1914 and 1922 and I am seeking to be as impartial as I can. Negotiation was being carried out under the threat of a European war, as was all too evident in 1914. There is no earthly possibility of the shadow of some Carson stalking the corridors of Westminster. If there is, I cannot detect it. There is no feeling in the post-Imperial era that could lead to a situation like the Curragh mutiny. So many of the forces which the Northern Irish people looked to for the maintenance of the union no longer exist, even though the sentiment does, and union must be maintained.
But the Assembly must work, because if there are other possibilities I can envisage but two. One is that proposed by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), simply that we should pull out.

Mr. Wellbeloved: No.

Mr. James: I apologise to the hon. Member if I have misinterpreted what he said. I will not pursue the point, except to say that the proposal has been put forward from certain quarters that we should pull out. But as the Taoiseach said last night that is a certain recipe for civil war which would extend to the Republic of Ireland and to this country and it is unthinkable that we should do any such thing. The other possibility is that we should revert to what my hon. Friends dislike most, namely a further period of direct rule in the hope that in 15 or 18 months another attempt can be made at creating an Assembly that will work.
Power sharing will place a heavy burden on those who have to get it off the ground, and particularly will it place a heavy burden on the shoulders of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I hope that he will approach his task with an air of moderation, a quality which has not been seen up to now.

Captain Orr: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present to hear his example of moderation.

Mr. James: I may have had that in mind, but I do not think so. If history places a heavy burden on those who would make a success of these things, it will be extremely unkind to those who do not.
It is true to say that this is almost a last possible attempt. I suggest that the House will not be all that kind to those who seek to wreck the Bill. We have spent two days in Committee and a full day on Report and Third Reading. I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South that the cause which he has been consistently promoting has not attracted very many adherents from either side of the House. There has been my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). It is a small battalion which my hon. Friend has been leading to the breaches.

Mr. Orme: All officers.

Mr. James: I welcome the idea of tripartite talks——

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I have not noticed big battalions behind the Government.

Mr. James: I seem to remember one vote which resulted in 219 battalions to six, but I let that pass.
Unlike some hon. Members I very much welcome the tripartite talks leading to a Council of Ireland. I genuinely believe that to be the joker within the pack, particularly within the ambit of our joint membership of the EEC.
I wish that some of my hon. Friends would realise that the Republic and Great Britain are English speaking partners in the vastly larger Community. We have enormous common interests. Those interests should be promoted. There is the possibility of contact which is opened up with the passage of the Bill. The visit of the Taoiseach should not be ignored.
I am staggered by my hon. and gallant Friend when he talks about the Republic. He talks about it as though it were some obscure cannibal tribe south of the Irrawaddy River and not a body of people who live within a stone's throw of his constituency. The burden of my hon. and gallant Friend's case in the last few days has been that what is regarded loosely as the Catholic community is a community of second-class citizens who are not entitled to any share of power.

Captain Orr: I cannot allow that to pass. My hon. Friend is being very provocative. I must make it absolutely plain that I was not speaking in sectarian terms. My hon. Friend knows that that is unfair.

Mr. James: I remind my hon. and gallant Friend that when we were discussing power sharing in Committee my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the coalition Government which was formed during the war. But my hon. and gallant Friend replied that they had also been at war for 50 years. That is the attitude of mind which I am getting at.
Why should there be an hereditary hatred for the people in the Republic, when we are natural partners within a joint enterprise in the EEC? That is the way in which I see things developing. If only we can get a relaxation of tension I do not see why we should not make a success of things in precisely the same way as Switzerland made a success of a constitution after a far bloodier and more sectarian period in the 1840s. Indeed, France and Germany successfully buried the hatchet in a way which we could not have conceived within 14 years of the ending of the last world war.
I am optimistic about the future. I welcome the Bill with open arms. History will record that Ireland has had two entirely different versions of history over nearly 800 years. The point at which those two lines of history coincide is the moment when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had the foresight and courage to dissolve Stormont and to start again entirely afresh.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has tackled the appallingly difficult job which he has had for the last 18 months in bringing the Bill to the point of Third Reading.
I offer the Assembly a fair wind.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Maginnis: My first duty is to bring the House back to reality. The Bill will go down in parliamentary history as the most unaltered piece of legislation since the European Communities Act. I reiterate the tribute paid by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to the Secretary of


State for his patience during the passage of the Bill. I would also compliment him on his sober diligence because the Government have been very diligent in seeing that nothing was given away in it.

Mr. Whitelaw: I find it a little hard to take that comment, considering that today I have brought forward at least five amendments to meet points made in Committee and have been thanked for doing so by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). It is a little hard of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) to say that I have not agreed to alter anything in the Bill. That cannot be substantiated by the facts.

Mr. Maginnis: My right hon. Friend misheard me. I did not say that the Bill was unaltered. I agree that many little points have been clarified and that he has made quite a number of amendments, but no amendments of substance have been made.
Throughout the past three or four years, the mistake has repeatedly been made by Government and Opposition of asking Northern Ireland to carry the can for decisions taken in this House, and we are being asked now to carry the can for this Bill. Does anyone here believe that hon. Members from Northern Ireland in this Imperial Parliament can go back to Northern Ireland this weekend, step out of the aircraft, hold the Bill up and say "I have it here—peace in our time"? I do not think that any one of us can do that.
We will have to look at this thing in a sensible manner. The big question mark hanging over the Bill is that of power sharing. No one can get away from that fact. What is the position following the Assembly elections? One section, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Reverend Ian Paisley)—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not right honourable"]—perhaps coming events cast their shadow before them—is concentrating on full integration within the United Kingdom. Another section wants a regional parliament with reasonable powers. Yet another section wants a negotiated independence for Northern Ireland. Another section, led by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has

the short-term aim of some type of unity in Northern Ireland and the long-term aim of a united Ireland.
We have all these different political views being asked to come together in power sharing. But initially at least there is no power to share. The Assembly will be merely a talking-shop until it decides in which way power can be shared in a way acceptable to the Secretary of State. Until then, the Assembly will get no power at all.
When the White Paper was published, I wrote on my copy, "Power sharing includes increased representation at Westminster". I believe that had a larger representation been granted to the people of Northern Ireland in this House, power sharing in Northern Ireland could have been a reality. For some unknown reason this point was not grasped by the powers that be. We are left in the position that Northern Ireland has no increased representation in this House but is asked to accept an Assembly which has and always will have far less power than had Stormont.
There is a will in Northern Ireland to make something work. I remind the House of the famous words of Sir Winston Churchill during war-time:
Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.
If the House gives it the proper tools, Northern Ireland will finish the job. It is the people of Northern Ireland who have to live with the situation.
I have perhaps riled some of my hon. Friends and my party by reserving judgment on the White Paper and on the Second Reading of the Bill. I said that I would wait until the Third Reading debate before giving my considered judgment. I intend to give it now, unreservedly. The Bill cannot have my full support because, as I said on Second Reading and in Committee, the power-sharing method will never work with all the inherent difficulties of the four different opinions which are represented in the Assembly. The more the Westminster Government try to force power sharing on Northern Ireland the less successful will they be. If the Assembly members were allowed a loose rein to work out together how to implement the criteria laid down in the Bill they would in the


end reach a conclusion. but as things are the chances are very slim.
I cannot give my blessing to the Bill because no recognition has been given to our request for extra representation for Northern Ireland in Westminster. I regret, therefore, that I am obliged to vote against the Third Reading.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. McMaster: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) and Dorset, North (Mr. David James) and others who have contributed to the debate. We were glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North and his colleagues from both sides of the House in Belfast at the end of last week for the Assembly elections. We appreciate the attention that has been given by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the problems of the last three years in Northern Ireland. We appreciate the time they have given up to visiting Ulster at some inconvenience and even risk to themselves, and the diligence with which they have attended and spoken in the debates on Northern Ireland.
This applies especially to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh was perhaps a little unfair in saying that my right hon. Friend made no concessions. He made concessions to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), on Clause 8 in respect of consultations with the parties and on Clause 25 in relation to heads of departments in the new Assembly being members of the Executive. These are important matters.
I wish that he had been able to make a concession on Clause 1. It was one of the matters that he agreed to consider. I was glad to hear his reasons for not giving way on it, though from my point of view I cannot entirely accept them. Nevertheless, as one of the Ulster Members in this House, I must say to my right hon. Friend that a debt of gratitude is owed by everyone in Northern Ireland to him, to his junior Ministers and to his officials for the time that they have taken in trying to sort out our problems.
Having said that, I must give my opinion about the Bill. By and large it

is an unsatisfactory and weak measure. The system of election that we have experienced in the past seven days is not really satisfactory. The constituencies are much too large, and I was disappointed that the Minister of State seemed adamant about the Government's intention of sticking to the system. After all, it is a trial system. A little more flexibility is required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh and others have developed the argument about power sharing. In practice, it may prove to be unworkable. I hope not. But it is very difficult to ask an executive to share power not just with their political opponents in the ordinary sense of the word, but with people who speak from a different standpoint and whose long-term aim is the ending of the State itself. If that is what is meant by power sharing—and my right hon. Friend was never too clear about this when he dealt with amendments in Committee—it could well be the rock on which this ship founders.
There are other minor matters concerning the position of the Governor and concerning oaths of allegiance which are felt strongly in Northern Ireland and which I was sorry to see in the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh, I am sorry that no concession was made on them. The position of the Governor is an especially sore point. He was highly respected, and it is totally unnecessary for the Government's scheme to abolish that office. It does not make it any more easy to establish a satisfactory solution in the future.
I come finally to the weakest point in the Bill and the White Paper. It is the proposition concerning the formation of a Council of Ireland. To the minds of many people in Northern Ireland, this is a very dangerous proposition. They smell a rat in it. If a council is to be established simply to consider trade matters, tourism and the like, that is all right. It has been accepted in the past, and it will be in the future. But very many people feel that it is a vehicle on which Northern Ireland will be taken into a united Ireland in 10 or 15 years as the Leader of the Opposition forecast some months ago.
We in Northern Ireland feel that the proposals set out in the Bill in respect


of proportional representation, power sharing and the like are less than satisfactory. They are proposals for a constitutional system in Northern Ireland which the Government would not dream of adopting in the United Kingdom as a whole. I have said before and I say again that these are concessions which have been made in the face of terrorism. I believe that they should not have been made at all.
This is not a time to make concessions to terrorism. One has only to think of what has happened in the past year or 15 months in Northern Ireland. Think of the casualty list since March 1972. My right hon. Friend knows that the tempo of violence has increased with each concession in Northern Ireland. The number of dead and injured or mutilated for life and the amount of damage to property has increased dramatically, particularly in the last 14 months. The security position is worse today, despite the success of the security forces in arresting IRA leaders, than it was when Stormont was suspended in March 1972.
We in Northern Ireland feel, too, that our constitutional position has been weakened. This is in spite of the declaration in Clause 1. We believe that the provisions set out in the Act under which our State was founded—the Government of Ireland Act 1920, repeated in the Downing Street Declaration—have been gradually weakened and that, though the declaration in Clause 1 gives some comfort in Ulster, it is much less strong, particularly in view of the interjection by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) during the debate on the clause in Committee when he made it clear that the Labour Party, which might well be in government shortly, would not feel bound by the clause.
Northern Ireland Members feel that very little attention has been paid to our views. We are listened to with great courtesy and at great length, no more so than at present. However, over the past two or three years senior representatives of the British Government have been stationed in Northern Ireland who have no deep understanding of our problems. There is a feeling abroad in Northern Ireland that the Government have listened too much to the spokesmen from one side.
Throughout the last four years there has been in Ulster a desire to placate people who have turned out to be implacable, as it has been well put in the debate. Concessions have been made to win the hearts of the minority. This has been the policy of the British Government over the last three years; they have attempted to convert the unconvertible or, as one hon. Member put it, appease the unappeasable or, as I would put it, tame the untameable. The primary duty of government has been neglected in the past three years. I say, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), that I do not believe that if the security forces had set their hearts to the job they could not have brought the IRA under control.
The IRA is still not accepted by the Government to be the main enemy in Northern Ireland. In answer to questions, the Government will not make a statement condemning the IRA. On many occasions I have asked—"Will my hon. Friends condemn the IRA?" They immediately say, "We condemn all terrorists"; in other words, they group one side with the other, saying that one side is as bad as the other.
This does not face the truth. The truth in Northern Ireland in the past three years—in the past 50 years—has been the existence of a small body of people, unappeaseable, who will not accept concessions; because they want to achieve an end—an end which can be summarised as the most undemocratic of all aims, namely, that the minority should impose its will by force on the majority. There has been a reaction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North referred to the last war. During the debates over the last three years I have been preached at at great length about the way in which we should treat our enemies. Hon. Members should not forget that they did not face up to a bombing campaign by a common enemy without being able to hit back. When their women and children were bombed in the last war they hit back. They were not afraid of using atomic weapons. We have been bombed, and we have lost 850 people in three years. Many people have been mutilated for life and there has been much damage to property. Over 250 members of the security forces have been


killed and many wounded by terrorist activities. There has been a reaction on my side, but a very marginal one. The surprising fact is that there has not been more, because when people in this country were hit like that they hit back. We would not have won the last war if we had tried to love our enemy.
I tell the hon. Member for Dorset, North, who referred to Southern Ireland as a friendly country, that it is a country that claims dominion over Ulster. Its constitution speaks of the reintegration of Northern Ireland. It refers to the 26 counties, but Southern Ireland has continued to work for the last 50 years to gain dominion over the entire island of Ireland and to take unto itself the curtilage of Ulster. That is the root of the problem.

Mr. David James: My hon. Friend will be generous enough to realise that yesterday the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland was clearly trying to get his country off the hook on which it was impaled by a previous generation.

Mr. Kilfedder: So long as they do not claim sovereignty over Loch Ness. I assume that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) was speaking about.

Mr. McMaster: I have already expressed a view about the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. I said that it was badly timed. If Mr. Cosgrave wishes to abandon the policies of the last 50 years he will have to change his constitution. But even if he does that he has no right to discuss the future government of Northern Ireland. It is no concern of his.
I ask hon. Members why we have had a plebiscite, why we have had a local authority election and why we have had an Assembly election, if it was not to establish one fact, namely, what the will of the people of Northern Ireland is. Why does Clause 1 say that the constitution of Northern Ireland shall not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland? Why are there worries and doubts in Northern Ireland? It is because the Prime Minister, next day, had private conversations with the Taoiseach; and because the Government themselves will not outlaw the IRA and use the security forces to restore law and

order, which is the primary duty of any Government.
The Government have consistently refused to back un established authority in Northern Ireland and to meet the violent campaign and the propaganda campaign of the IRA. If my own Front Bench laughs it is because I suggest outlawing the IRA.

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend refers to laughter from this Front Bench. As far as I am concerned, his speech is not bringing me any amusement.

Mr. McMaster: I am glad to hear that. The outlawing of the IRA would have the primary effect of helping to meet the propaganda campaign of the Republicans. Only when the Government tell the world what they think of the IRA terrorist challenge to Northern Ireland have we any hope of restoring law and order there.
This Assembly will not restore law and order in Northern Ireland. This struggle has continued there for 50 years. I regret that my right hon. Friend saw fit to set out at length in the Bill provisions relating to discrimination. The fact that these are set out at length implies that for 50 years the Northern Ireland Government were adopting policies that were motivated by either religious or political discrimination. That is a charge that I shall always deny.
Conditions in Ulster were very good and were improving rapidly in 1968 and 1969 when the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) and some of her friends started this violent campaign. There is a link between that campaign and terrorist campaigns in France and other parts of the world. That is why this subject is so important. There is a link between them, just as there was a link with the "Claudia", which brought Russian arms to Northern Ireland to help the terrorists to continue their campaign, and the aircraft which was stopped in Antwerp and found to be full of Communist weapons from Czechoslovakia. These are not accidents. The enemy working within Northern Ireland and supplying the IRA with rifles and ammunition and some of its funds is a Communist enemy.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. If hon. Members can contain themselves, the House will be


able to do what I think that it wants to do very badly, and that is to get finished.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an important debate such as this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surely the Chair has no right to suggest that the debate should finish. It is for hon. Members to decide when the debate should finish. We have felt the weight in the past years of a terrible campaign. As a Member of this House I would protest against any interference from the Chair to keep Members from Northern Ireland from speaking within the limits of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When the hon. Member has been here a bit longer he will realise that the Chair never has the intention of curtailing debate. The Chair's job is to sense the feeling of the House. That is what I gave, and I object to being bullied by the hon. Gentleman or by any other hon. Member.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I never attempted to bully you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply said——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman please adopt a more conciliatory tone of voice. Mr. McMaster.

Mr. McMaster: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House if I have been wearying. Perhaps I was carried away emotionally. I and my constituents have had to put up with this. I have been at the death-bed of some of my constituents, including women and children, who have been killed in this campaign. I feel very strongly about this and wish that we could have done something to end these unnecessary deaths of the past few years, as do all hon. Members.
I plead with the Government to remember their duty to support established authority in Northern Ireland, including the police. The appointment of the Hunt Committee and Sir Arthur Young's ideas of civilianising the police force at a time of extreme violence in Ulster were totally misguided. They undermined the police and, with them, established authority in Ulster.
What the Government must do if they are to restore the position in Ulster is to back up the new Executive and to give them proper power and control, particularly over our police. I desire very much that devolution should work. I believe that the best form of government for Ulster is to have a form of devolution with an Executive dealing with local affairs in Ulster. But this is a time for strong government in Ulster. As the Bill is put into practice in Northern Ireland, I hope that it will lead to strong government, with the Government having control over their internal security and police forces, as quickly as possible.
I want the British Government to practise what they preach and not to have a plebiscite which shows a clear result in favour of union followed by steps which undermine the Union. I ask for a degree of flexibility from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in carrying out his functions as laid down in the Bill. I ask him to recognise quite openly the nature of the common enemy in Ulster and to lose no opportunity to declare that recognition not only in Ulster but in this House and, through the Foreign Office, throughout the world.
I have recently had experience of some of the shortcomings of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the propaganda campaign in Houston, Texas, which has been referred to. I was there just after Easter and saw the shortcomings of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the IRA representatives in America who are collecting funds there to carry on this campaign. Some Communists were working with them and some of them admitted it openly to me on a television programme.
Although I have expressed strong criticism of the Bill, I want to see it work and therefore, although I voted against Second Reading, now that it has been passed by the House, I am prepared to support the Bill and to work as hard as I can——

Mr. Russell Kerr: That has changed my mind.

Mr. McMaster: —and to work as hard as I can to make the Assembly work. I would only ask my right hon. Friend to try to meet some of the points that I have raised—

Mr. Kilfedder: My hon. Friend is going to support the Bill?

Mr. McMaster: Yes, I did say that.

Captain Orr: I find that difficult to believe, in the light of my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. McMaster: I have spoken as strongly as I could in criticism of the Bill, confident that my right hon. Friend is not just sitting here but is listening and that he will try, in operating the Bill, to use the flexibility that I have asked for, so that effective government can be established in Northern Ireland, and especially to treat the next elections differently from those held last Thursday.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Kilfedder: We have heard a very strong speech against the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). Since he voted in favour of the White Paper and has now revealed that he will vote for the Bill, hon. Members will understand how strongly I feel, since I voted against the White Paper and intend, as I have always maintained, to vote against the Third Reading.
I do not intend to speak for as long as my hon. Friend, but that does not mean to say that my feelings are not as strong as his. I regret that many hon. Members seem more anxious to depart to their homes and their beds than to deal with a matter which is crucial to Northern Ireland and its people. For instance, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) and other hon. Members had had to live in Northern Ireland over the last three years, perhaps they would take a different attitude tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East talked about what the British Government had ordered during the last war. We know what terrible things happened, for instance, the bombing of Dresden in pursuit of the defeat of the enemy. If, in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, we ask for proper military measures, it is deemed politically unwise to allow the Army to take the stern measures which are necessary to wipe out these thugs.
We are debating tonight the final stages of the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill,

in the highly unusual and perhaps unique circumstances that 78 members, including the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I, have already been returned to the Assembly with which the Bill is concerned. None of those representatives, including the hon. Member, my hon. Friend and myself, will know until the Royal Assent is given to the Bill what are the initial powers which will be given to these representatives, apart from the fundamentals set out in the Bill.
It was a former Home Secretary who, two years ago, declared that the IRA campaign had led to a state of war in Northern Ireland. No one who has seen the devastation there would deny that statement. It was not denied at the time. There is hardly a family in Northern Ireland which has not had friends or relatives killed or injured by the reign of terror pursued so vituperatively by the IRA.
Yet in the middle of this we have had an election designed to placate those principally responsible for initiating the violence and continuing it. The political capitulation to the men of violence as manifested by this Bill in the midst of the shambles created by their terrorism is not the way to create confidence among the law-abiding majority and to make them willing to work this measure, even if it is to their disadvantage. In the phrase used by the Secretary of State some time ago, the people of Northern Ireland are war weary.
The people of Northern Ireland have been pushed about far too much in past years and they are finally taking their stand. Despite the artificial system specially devised by my right hon. Friend and set out in the Bill in my opinion to erode the influence of the loyal majority of the population, we are grateful that the Ulster people have been given the opportunity to express their opinion in an election. However, what does that democratic right amount to?
In this Bill the members of the Assembly will have no control over the Executive. They are not permitted to decide when the border poll should be held, they are not even allowed to decide what sort of voting system should be operated when the election is held. The


results of the recent election may not be what the Government hoped for or intended. The people, in the election, were asked for their views and they have given them in no uncertain terms. Of course the people of Northern Ireland desperately want peace, but this Bill will not provide that.
The Ulster people also want their democratic rights, which they enjoyed until recently, restored to them. The Bill does not provide for that. What it does ensure is that for the first time the Irish Republic will be permitted to dictate the kind of political structure which should exist in Northern Ireland, and that is something I deprecate.
Provision is made to allow for the creation of an All-Ireland Council on which the Ulster majority will be permanently in a minority. No longer will there be a Parliament of Northern Ireland. The Governor has gone, the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen has gone. Instead of that we get leaders of parties demanding that oaths of allegiance be given to them. This Bill removes many things which constitute an impediment to a slide towards a united Ireland.
If proper military action had been taken in 1969 we would not have had this Bill and over 850 people would not have died. This Bill was not contemplated 15 months ago because when Stormont was prorogued the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the suspension of that parliament was temporary. His words have not turned out to be true. We have had the removal of Stormont and of the democratic system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North was critical of Unionist rule in Northern Ireland, but if only he ex-examined the 50 years he would find that a great deal was achieved in Northern Ireland.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that none of my constituents in Devon has any of the things he is asking for? They have not got a parliament of their own, but they do not complain that they do not have democratic rights, because they have a Member of Parliament, just as my hon. Friend's constituents have here.

Mr. Kilfedder: My hon. Friend represents fewer constituents than I do, until the boundary revision.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: More.

Mr. Kilfedder: I represent 123,000 constituents. Perhaps my hon. Friend could tell me how many he represents.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend is quite right. I represent about 95,000.

Mr. Kilfedder: Perhaps under the boundary revision my hon. Friend's constituency will be reduced in size so that he represents far fewer constituents.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It will be more, in fact.

Mr. Kilfedder: I respect my hon. Friend as a very conscientious and active Member. He should be complaining to Mr. Speaker's Conference and making sure that his people have their proper representation. There should be more than one Member if the constituency has over 100,000 electors.
The people of Northern Ireland would like to have full representation in this House. The Bill does not provide for that. It provides for power sharing with Republicans in the Executive and with the Irish Republic in a Council of Ireland. If the salary of the heads of departments is to be £6,000 a year, as reported in the Press, some may be induced to participate in power sharing with Republicans in the Executive, but it will prove impossible for parties which are diametrically opposed to each other to work together in the Executive. Time will prove that, and my hon. Friend will find that the Bill will not bring the results which he plans and hopes for.
Normally when a major measure passes through its final stages in the House there is great enthusiasm. I remember when the Opposition walked out during the passage of the Industrial Relations Act and half my right hon. and hon. Friends walked across and sat on the Opposition Front Bench. I think that they included my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was more modestly seated below the Gangway.

Mr. Kilfedder: I remember the excitement aroused over the European Communities Bill, when it received its Third


Reading. There is no excitement in the House tonight. Very few Members are present. It is a very doleful wake indeed for Ulster. If the people of Northern Ireland could only look at this Chamber they would feel ashamed that the House and the Government were treating them in this paltry way.

11.59 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There is very little enthusiasm in the House tonight, even from those who are seeking to put their benediction upon the Bill. Sooner or later the House will have to face up to certain realities.
The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) may tell us that for Ulster there is no Carson, no Curragh mutiny, and that there is just sentiment. I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that, in spite of the campaign of bombing, wounding, mutilation and destruction, the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland is as strong as ever. Let the House not think that the people of Northern Ireland will be bombed, shot or mutilated into capitulation to the Republic. They are determined to remain outside the Republic, and it is not sentiment for which we are battling. Whether hon. Members like it or not, what we are battling for is our heritage.
I differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite in many things, but they have at least been faithful in their devotion to the various debates on Northern Ireland. That cannot be said for all hon. Members on those benches opposite. Some hon. Members on this side of the House have come to debates to do with the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland and to do with those things that matter to the life of the ordinary individual, and we have always been glad to see them here, but tonight we are passing the last stages of a very important Bill for Northern Ireland and yet the House is thinly attended and there seems to be an eagerness expressed from the Chair that this debate should come to a conclusion.
I might not be here for long as a Member, but so long as I am here I shall stand up for the rights of the people who sent me here. I do not accept that the Chair in this House can put an interpretation on my tone of voice and say

that, because I want to speak in a debate in this House, I have adopted——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. I Mallalieu): Order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I protest against such—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Whitelaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) intended to continue his speech, and I hope later to be be able to deal with some of the points that have been made. I did not understand my hon. Friend to have concluded his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member had not completed his speech, he may continue it now.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I inquire what event caused the Chair to put the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time" in the middle of a speech by an hon. Member? I did not hear the closure moved from either Front Bench or from the back benches. What event caused the Chair to put the Question in the middle of an hon. Member's speech? I have never, in 12? years in this House——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has put his question to the Chair two or three times, and he need not do that. The debate is on Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who had the Floor, sat down, not, as I thought, because I had told him to sit down. It was my mistake in thinking that he had finished his speech, and I now repair it by calling the hon. Member to continue his speech.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not want to make any comment on the mistake that occurred, except to say to the Chair and to hon. Members that I was sent to this House by the people of North Antrim to represent them here and I shall continue to express what I believe is their viewpoint, irrespective of what attitude is adopted towards me in this House. Having made that clear, I am glad that the Question has not been put and that the debate will continue.
As I was saying before that interesting interruption, the Bill is of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. I have taken a consistent line since the publication of these proposals in what was called a Green Paper but which was really a White Paper, their appearance in the White Paper itself and finally in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and I did not go to the electorate on anything that was hazy, and the Secretary of State knows that. The people of Northern Ireland know that we submitted ourselves to the electorate on the declaration that we were against the constitution as proposed in the Bill and the White Paper. It was spelled out fully. I have heard members of other parties say before the elections things different from what they have said after them. I did not work that way, and the electors said to me, "We agree with you and are returning you on those terms".
It is all very well for hon. Members to talk about responsibility, and it is all very well for the hon. Member for Dorset, North, to say that history will not be kind to anybody who does not do what the hon. Member thinks he should do. The people are the final deciders. The people of Northern Ireland have spoken in these elections, and no one in this House should think that they have put their imprimatur on this Bill, because they have not. Everybody in Northern Ireland knows that.
The reason why they have not done so is that in this Bill are things which are completely and totally repugnant to them. When I received my postal vote in the election I saw "On Her Majesty's Service" stamped off the envelope, and I was indignant. So were many thousands of voters in Northern Ireland. That is something that people in Northern Ireland resent. Why, on an official paid envelope, must the words "On Her Majesty's Service" be printed over? I have made inquiries and I discovered that it costs the Government a very large sum of money to run thousands and thousands of envelopes through printing machines to stamp off the words "On Her Majesty's Service". That is a reflection of something which goes deep. Every envelope sent out for a postal vote in the elections had three envelopes: an

envelope in which the vote was to be sent, an envelope to contain the vote and an envelope to contain a certificate that the person using it was the person entitled to use it. On all those envelopes the words "On Her Majesty's Service" were stamped out.
This Bill says it is to be illegal to ask a person to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen when appointed to office under the Government of Northern Ireland. The oath I took to become a Member of this House, and the oath I took as a Member of the Stormont Parliament, in common with other Members of that Parliament, is abolished by the Bill. Instead we are to take an oath to the laws of Northern Ireland. There are at present in Northern Ireland laws which are not acceptable to members of the minority, and they could not sincerely take an oath to uphold those laws. They are against certain laws and Acts in Northern Ireland.
Why was this done? This was done in an effort to appease the Republican elements in Northern Ireland. Are they appeased? Alas, after the election was over and this Bill had passed through Committee, another soldier was assassinated in the Ballymurphy area. The shootings go on and the killings go on.
This House thought that if Stormont were removed—many Members have said this to me—the trouble would stop. It did not stop. We were told that, if we put something in place of Stormont, the trouble would stop. It did not stop. This House must realise that, no matter what political settlement we seek in Northern Ireland, the terrorists have got to be dealt with and they have got to be rooted out from Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental consideration. Every Member of this House should be fully aware of it.
Then also in this Bill we have relations with the Republic of Ireland. There are many Members of this House who are committed to the union of Ireland. They feel that that would be the ideal solution. They feel that if they could get the people of the North into the South, that would be the end of the problem. They are entitled to their point of view, but the people of Northern Ireland bitterly resent politicians from the South of Ireland interfering in what they believe are


their own affairs. We had the unfortunate interference of Dr. Garret FitzGerald when he tried to tell us what we should do with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He said it should be reconstructed. I would say to the Foreign Secretary from Dublin that he should mind his own business. It is not his business what the people of Northern Ireland do.
There is also the fact that the Prime Minister of the Republic should intimate that he will have some say in the shape of Northern Ireland. If this is the sovereign Parliament, and in my opinion it is, and I stand for that, it is in this House that those decisions should be taken and not outside with negotiations with the Prime Minister of the Republic which has in the past been hostile to Northern Ireland. We all know that, and the hon. Member for Dorset, North should be aware that, no matter what is said in this House, the South of Ireland in its constitution claims full dominion over Northern Ireland.
I have always maintained that the moves should come from Dublin to scrap their constitution. The people of Northern Ireland would then realise that the South really wanted good neighbourly relations. Perhaps the people of the South of Ireland will find out that the fact that they gave sanctuary to terrorism and allowed the murderers of policemen and soldiers from Northern Ireland to hide in their territory may rebound on them, to their shock. I trust that it will not, because I would not wish on anybody the afflictions which have been inflicted on Northern Ireland.
The South has made no change in the constitution. After all, the word of a Prime Minister of the Republic is worth nothing because, when we look back in history, we see that the present Prime Minister's father put a Bill through in the South, a treaty which was ratified in that Parliament and in this Parliament and in the Parliament of Northern Ireland. It was lodged with the League of Nations, but when De Valera came to power he tore it up. We should remember that this is the mere word of a Prime Minister who is not in a substantial majority in the Dail, so the fact that he says they recognise it does not mean constitutional recognition of Northern Ireland. This should be emphasised and considered.
Then there is the matter of power sharing. It is a strange thing that I have not heard from those parties which are evidently anxious to be appointed to the Executive saying "We want to get into the Executive". Mr. Faulkner has been cagey and hedging and, as one of his opponents said, foxy on this matter. I have not heard the SDLP or any member of it saying "Yes, we are prepared to share power with Mr. Faulkner and work under him".
We have made clear that this is unworkable and that it will not work. Everyone in this House should realise that. However, the House has something to work on. Seventy-eight people have been elected directly by the people of Northern Ireland on such a franchise that the minority can no longer say that it is not democratic. Because the minority wanted some sort of proportional representation, they have got it. The election has been held and there are now 78 representatives. It is the duty of the British Government to contact those representatives as soon as possible so that they may tell the Government what they think can be done for the good of everybody in Northern Ireland.
If there is a spirit, as I believe and hope there is, which will prompt the British Government to talk, irrespective of the agonies of the Bill, and if we can get a solution in Northern Ireland that gives stability and puts us on the road to peace—whether it is a scheme outlined in the Bill or not—I am sure that the Government will be wise enough to encourage the people of Northern Ireland along that way. I am encouraging the people I represent and those over whom I have influence to go along that road. But it is certainly not the way as set out by the milestones of the Bill.
There are many things which will have to be scrapped and changed, but the situation is not lost and we have not taken the last step. There is no last step. Every step has to be taken and perhaps the foolish steps that have been set out in this House by people who do not know the true situation and the true facts will have to be withdrawn. But there are steps which can be taken and I hope that the Government and this House will be wise enough to accept the renegotiation of those things that are not acceptable to many people in Northern Ireland.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Fitt: I felt during the course of the speech by the hon. Member for Antrim. North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that I would finish by disagreeing with him on every aspect. But towards the end he said something with which I agreed. He said that it would be necessary for all the elected representatives in the new Northern Ireland Assembly to discuss what possible future there may be for Northern Ireland. That was a reasonable suggestion and it reflects the attitude of the party which I have the honour to represent in Northern Ireland.
However, I have sat patiently listening to the other Unionist spokesmen and it became crystal clear that they are determined to wreck the new Assembly. They are not prepared to negotiate. They have put their cards fairly and squarely on the table and they have indicated their intention to vote against the Bill. I admit that I am not enamoured of every clause in the Bill. There are many points in it with which I would find it hard to agree. I have not had the opportunity to voice that disagreement and I do not want to take the time of the House at this late hour. Because of other commitments I did not have the opportunity to speak in Committee or on Second Reading.
I ask those Unionists, however, to tell the people of Northern Ireland what their attitude is. They have repeatedly stated during the course of the debate that they are opposed to violence. They say that they want to bring it to an end. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) in particular keeps himself well up to date with all the deaths that take place in Northern Ireland and he seeks repeatedly in the course of debate here to lay all the blame for all the deaths on the IRA. That is patently untrue. Many of the deaths that have happened in Northern Ireland have been caused by extremists who would give the Unionist Party support and have formerly given it support. I do not accept that there was anyone remotely connected with the IRA who brutally murdered my colleague in Northern Ireland in the early hours of last Tuesday morning.

Mr. McMaster: Surely the hon. Gentleman must admit in all honesty and fairness to the House—and I have no brief at all for extremists of any kind—

that there was no UDA in Northern Ireland before March 1972—namely, before Stormont was dissolved. Further, he must admit that there would be no UDA or UFF, or any other terrorist force, if it were not for the fact that the IRA has been carrying out its campaign for three years.

Mr. Fitt: I can only reply to the hon. Gentleman that there was no IRA before the burning of Bombay Street and the looting on the Falls Road in August 1969. I am prepared to accept that there is violence in Northern Ireland, but it is unfair and untrue for any hon. Member, and particularly the hon. Member for Belfast, East, to lay all the blame for all the murders on one section of the community. If the hon. Members for Belfast, East, for Down, South (Captain Orr), for Antrim, North and for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) were so intent on eradicating violence from Northern Ireland and trying to bring some form of sanity back into operation, they would ask themselves the salient question " What is the alternative to make the Assembly work?".
If politics do not work we shall have a continuation of the violence and killing which we have had to live with for so long. That is the only alternative. Hon. Members who express their total opposition to the Bill, which seeks in a tentative way to make changes in Northern Ireland, are condemning not only their constituents but all the people to a further period of violence.
I have said that there are many parts of the Bill with which I am not enamoured. However, in the desperate position which prevails in Northern Ireland, I am at least prepared to see the clear alternatives and to try to take whatever steps I possibly can to eradicate violence.
I bitterly regret that Unionist hon. Members have had support from some hon. Members who are not Unionist Members and who have little relationship with Northern Ireland. They have had, in particular, support from the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). He has shown his support for the extreme Unionist spokesmen since the Northern Ireland problem arose.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not been studying


what I have said in debate. He has said that he was not able to be present for certain debates. I am not voting against the Bill.

Mr. Fitt: You could have fooled me. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman votes against the Bill, he has by his words supported the Unionist argument in almost every facet.
I have said in relation to the Northern Ireland problem that the Stormont system did not work. It brought with it oppression and repression, victimisation and discrimination. It brought with it majority and minority politics, first-class and second-class citizenship. That is why that system had to be brought to the ground.
It was not the IRA which brought Stormont to the ground. It was not the men of violence who brought Stormont to the ground but the ordinary people, who had been subject to Unionism for far too long and who finally began to make their legitimate demands. When I hear the hon. Member for Chigwell saying that there were Unionists and Nationalists who regretted the abolition of Stormont, may I ask who were the nationalists?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. McAteer.

Mr. Fitt: I think we should get in touch with Mr. McAteer and see how he regarded the abolition of Stormont.
We have the Bill before us tonight because the Stormont Parliament as it existed under the Unionists would never have agreed to implement Part III of the Bill relating to the implementation of a charter of human rights. Time after time politicians in the Stormont Parliament, particularly liberal Members, brought before Stormont a bill of rights which was completely and contemptuously rejected by the Unionist Party. because they want to maintain and arrogate to themselves all the power and privileges. That is what is in the minds of Unionist Members here tonight. They are not worried about the Northern Ireland constitutional position in the past or in the years ahead. What they are trying to recreate is the ascendancy politics which dominated Northern Ireland for so long and in which they could arrogate to themselves and their sup-

porters all the power in the land and deny the most elementary social justice to their political opponents.
In the new Assembly it is the intention of the Government to share power. I am not particularly enamoured of that term "power sharing Indeed, I believe that it is offensive. I believe that some people may get the idea that people want power for power's sake, and I do not think that is true, certainly not of the minority representatives. If any of their representatives are given power, it will not be given to them personally but will only mean that they will be placed in a position in which they can determine and ensure that the neglected areas of Northern Ireland will be given the housing and jobs they have lacked for so long.
Why is the Unionist Party so vehemently opposed to power sharing? Knowing the Unionist mentality from the days when we had a one-party State, I know that the Unionists never believed that the day would ever come when they would be asked to share power. All the Unionists in the debate so far have repeatedly made reference to Clause I wherein, they say, they must have the guarantee that they will remain British citizens and part of the United Kingdom. But that is the only part of the Bill they are prepared to accept. They want to maintain their British citizenship but they want to dominate Northern Ireland in their own way. They are bitterly resentful because the Government are now saying "If you want to remain citizens of the United Kingdom, you must pay heed to what this Parliament says".
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South has said that he accepts the sovereignty of this Parliament as a citizen of the United Kingdom. Again I must repeat, in case my words are interpreted differently in Northern Ireland, that I am not entirely happy with many of the Bill's provisions, but I recognise its honesty. But although the hon. and gallant Member says he accepts the sovereignty of this Parliament, he goes on to predict that the Bill is unworkable and to say that it will not save one single life in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the hon. and gallant Member is wrong, because I have seen too many innocent lives taken in Northern Ireland. For such an impression to be


given by someone in a responsible position is tantamount to saying to the men of violence "Reject the Bill and carry on with your killings and murders." Who are the people who want the Bill defeated? Who are the people who want power sharing put out of the window? Who are the people who do not want politics to work? They are the extremist, the Provisional wing of the IRA. They have repeatedly said that they do not want politics to work and have shown their opposition to the Assembly. The Provisional wing of the IRA called on its supporters last week to boycott the Assembly elections and spoil their ballot papers. That is one section of the community which does not want power sharing or anything like it.
Then there is the other wing, the UDA candidates who were firmly rejected even by the Protestants—the Tommy Herrons and the Billy Hulls who for years have claimed to speak for the loyalists. If the election proved anything, it proved that the Catholic minority desperately wanted to give politics a chance. They completely rejected those who tried to join them to the campaign of violence. The same happened on the Unionist side of the community. Men who had any association with para-military organisations such as the UDA or the UDF were rejected by the electorate.
The election has shown that the people of Northern Ireland are war-weary and desperate for peace. They are living in fear and do not want a continuation of the campaign of violence. It ill behoves anyone with the interests of Northern Ireland at heart to say that the Bill will not work. That is to condemn the people to another period of violence.
During the election, the party I represent made clear its attitude. We want to create a new Northern Ireland, a just society in which all men will be equal and victimisation and discrimination abolished. We want whatever power there is to be made freely available over all sections of the community. We recognise that this will be no easy task because of our tragic history. It will be a long, uphill struggle before we can even attempt to end the dreadful polarisation and alienisation between the two communities. The sentiments ex-

pressed by Unionist Members tonight will not make the task any easier.
In the initial stages in the Assembly there will be an opportunity, which we have not had for the past four years, to sit down, discuss and negotiate with other elected members. The people of Northern Ireland expressed their will at the polls last week. I do not say that every representative of the Vanguard movement or of the party headed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North is an extreme Protestant bigot. I recognise that many candidates who were elected last week were elected by people who are afraid, people who feel that they will be transported overnight into a united Ireland. They fear that their British citizenship will be taken away from them and that they will be made second-class citizens in a united Ireland.
I have been a second-class citizen for too long under Unionism to want to inflict that upon anyone. I know what it feels like to be a member of a minority that is trampled on and oppressed by one-party government. That is the last thing I want to inflict on my Protestant fellow-countrymen. We must co-operate and allay these fears, and we can do so only by talking and negotiation.
I understand the urgency with which the Secretary of State wants to treat the present situation, but I ask him not to push forward too quickly. We cannot discuss and settle all the problems in three weeks. It may take four, five or six weeks. There cannot be a deadline by which all the problems should be sorted out.
I hope to have the opportunity to talk to all the elected members of the new Assembly. My party has 19 members in the Assembly. We have been given a clear mandate from the minority population to take whatever political steps we can to make politics work and to stop the killings. I promise the Secretary of State that, if we are given the opportunity, we shall do everything possible to ensure that there is a political system brought into Northern Ireland which will operate in the interests of all the people. But there are many issues about which we shall have to negotiate with those who will be opposed to us. They include the creation of an acceptable police force and many other issues which have caused


so much trouble and division in the community.
I heard the hon. Member for Down, North ask how members of the SDLP could take part in the Executive since they did not like some of the laws on the statute book in Northern Ireland. I regard many of them as repugnant, especially the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Flags and Emblems Act. But we shall regard those as having priority in any discussions. In any event, the hon. Member for Antrim, North should not try, in this House or anywhere else, to determine the attitude which will be taken by the SDLP, especially in view of the number of seats that his party secured in the election.
We shall regard the initial stages of the new Assembly as being an opportunity which has been given us in which we can discuss with all the elected representatives of Northern Ireland the type of society we want there. We want to bring about a situation in which all men are equal. We want to bring about the creation of a new North in the Six Counties and a reconciliation between the communities. Inevitably that will lead to a new Ireland where all Irish men and women will be able to conduct their own affairs.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have listened for some time to hon. Members detailing the sufferings of all the parties in Northern Ireland. I want to say a word about the sufferings of the rest of the United Kingdom which have contributed to this situation.
I deal first with the effusion of blood from the United Kingdom, with the men of our Armed Forces whom we have lost, the widows who have lost their husbands and the children who have lost their fathers, not because of a will in this country to impose itself on Northern Ireland but because the minority in Northern Ireland cried out to us for protection. We sent in our Armed Forces with the full assent, encouragement and will of both sides of this House, not because we wanted to use armed force but because it was the only palliative—not solution—to the situation.
This country has paid its price as well. When we hear of the sufferings, when

we observe the sufferings and when we share the sufferings of all the people of Ulster, we are entitled to ask them and their representatives in Parliament to see the sufferings which we in this part of the United Kingdom have borne and continue to bear.
The speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was well worthy of the traditions of this House. To any who claim to represent people in Northern Ireland but who reject the chance of a political solution, I say that we in this country cannot for ever bear that cross. We have poured out our blood. We have poured out our treasure in the economic support that the rest of the United Kingdom has given to Northern Ireland in the past decade, and that is a matter of which we can be proud.
Does anybody believe that in the slaughter of the aircraft industry Short's would have survived except for the contribution it makes to the Northern Ireland economy or that the special provisions for Northern Ireland's agriculture would have been borne by the taxpayers of this country except in the context of contributing an economic base upon which the people of Northern Ireland could build a solution?
It is fundamentally unjust and inappropriate that the people of Northern Ireland should concentrate entirely on their own sufferings and not at all on those which the rest of the United Kingdom endure to enable them to achieve their solution.
Northern Ireland has an opportunity now in the Bill. The rest of the United Kingdom has made its contribution in blood, in economic support and in its most able Ministers who could well be used in other Departments of State and who did not go to Northern Ireland simply because they had nothing better to do with their time. These conditions will not last for ever. Time can run out. I say to those who are the political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, fairly elected, "If you will not help yourselves now, God help you, because the time will come when we will help you no longer."

12.41 p.m.

Mr. Orme: This has been a difficult debate. Many of the views which have been expressed have not taken account


of what happened in Ireland last Thursday with the election of the new Assembly and the new political future that lies before the Province.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) underlined the difficulties and the fractiousness surrounding this issue. I need not emphasise to the Secretary of State the size of his job during the coming discussions.
Surely the message that there is not unlimited time has got home to the non. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Down, South (Captain Orr), who, though they welcome the new Assembly, adopt the attitude that "We want the Assembly because we want a political dialogue, but in no circumstances do we want the Bill."
I predict a lot of trouble, certainly from this side of the House if hon. Members think that they can go into the Assembly, argue for the next six or nine months and then come back to Westminster and say "There will be no new Executive. We now have a majority which is against it. We want a new Bill. The House of Commons had better start all over again." Judging from the views which have been expressed by Conservative Members tonight, I do not think that it will be all plain sailing on that side either.
It will not be individual Members who will be taking these decisions. They will be reflecting an increasing public irritation with the whole question. Some of us who have been concerned with the Northern Ireland issue over the years have held out for a new political approach, for a new assembly, for many of the measures that are in the Bill. The Opposition do not believe that every word in the Bill is perfect. After a long debate the Government were almost defeated in a vote on the border question. We welcomed the White Paper. We see this as the basis for some form of political detente.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) again that I do not think there is unlimited time for discussions. Certainly he and his party want to go into the Assembly to meet and discuss various issues with the new members, but there is not unlimited time. There is no luxury of time in this matter

—and that goes for all parties in the Assembly.
I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He bears a great responsibility in terms of the question whether the Assembly can be made to work or whether it must fail. I believe that he is a constitutionalist. I believe him when he says that he wants the Assembly, although he is not happy with the White Paper and the Bill. But he still has responsibility as a person who supported the border poll and wants to maintain the current situation. He has a responsibility at least to try to make the Assembly work. It may not be so difficult when the attempt is made.
When I was in Northern Ireland last week I thought that one of the most horrifying things about the election, reading the election manifestos of all the parties putting forward candidates, was that the meat and drink of elections—the economic and industrial issues and the social matters—never seemed to be mentioned at all. As one who has been involved in elections in one way or another since as long ago as 1945 I was astounded by this.
The question of the top 25 companies being taken into public ownership and the little controversy that we have had in the Labour Party about it did not pass the lips of the electorate in Northern Ireland, let alone the candidates. People in the House and in this country want to see the Executive get down to work and succeed on the basis of political argument, but they want to see the elected representatives in the Assembly deal with the question of an 8 per cent. unemployment rate, the wretched housing that exists in the Province and the fact that, because of the beauty of Northern Ireland, there is a great opportunity for tourism and the development of cross-border co-operation.
Surely we must welcome the fact that cross-border negotiation can take place, whether in a Council of Ireland or in whatever form. If we send into these negotiations people like the hon. Member for Antrim, North I am convinced that the people he represents will not feel unrepresented; they will not fear that he will sell them out behind closed doors.
There has been an air of gloom and fractiousness about today's debate, an air


of unreality and a turning back to the sterile arguments of the past. We must throw off that feeling. I went round Northern Ireland with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). He sits there with his eyes closed, but he is fully awake. One does not often catch him sleeping. There is a feeling of uncertainty among the minority. There is still the problem of the Provisional IRA, which the people do not support, as they proved in the ballot last Thursday. But they also have a feeling of some strength, because they now have their own elected representatives.
I know that there is uncertainty among many Protestants, including members of the working class and active trade unionists, and members of my own and other major unions in this country. Some of them feel that they are in a difficult situation, that there is uncertainty and that the security which they believed they have had for 50 years has been removed. That was expressed to me outside polling booths last Thursday, and very vociferously by some people.
It is the job of the elected representatives of the Assembly to give those people courage and to say that this Parliament means what it says. It is their job to say that if the Assembly works there will be no problems because there can be security, a move forward and political development.
That is why the Opposition support the Bill. The Bill is a basis for the type of political development that we have been advocating. There is no certainty that it will work. We cannot guarantee that. Ultimately the people of Northern Ireland will decide. But if they, either themselves or through their elected representatives, send word back to this House that it is unworkable, the decisions of this House and the British people may be unpredictable. They ought to bear that in mind.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is important for me in anything I say at this stage of the Bill not to put myself on a hook of any particular kind which I may then wish to get off later during various discussions. In nearly 18 months in Northern Ireland I have learned that it is very unwise to get on to a hook from which one can

not subsequently remove oneself without pain. Therefore, I do not intend to do so.
It is, however, important to make one or two points. First, on behalf of my Ministers and myself, I should like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and many others for their kind personal remarks. I am grateful to my Ministers for all the work that they have undertaken.
I want to make a few remarks about the background in Northern Ireland against which the Bill inevitably has to be considered—the continued campaign of violence. I have the greatest sympathy with those who have desperate concern about this. I appreciate very much the feelings, for example, of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), who has experienced a great many tragedies, as have many other hon. Members. One knows only too well of the personal tragedy that affected the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) last week. I have already expressed to him my sympathy in that particular case. Therefore, one has to look at the background.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East says that the men of violence have not been condemned. He says that the Provisional IRA has not been condemned. I pay tribute to all those—some have shown considerable courage in doing so—who have firmly stood up against violence over the years. They have stood up against it and they have been proved right at the election, because violence, from wherever it comes, has been substantially defeated at the ballot box and none of those who have advocated any form of violence got anywhere at all at the election. That is very important factor. Into that category undoubtedly comes the Provisional IRA campaign.
It has been said that there are other men of violence. Alas, that is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East asked whether I would condemn the Provisional IRA's campaign of violence. Most certainly, yes, I will. I thought I had done so. If I have not, I certainly take the opportunity to do so now. If there is one thing that anyone doing my job would wish to condemn, it is some of the actions taken in their name and


for which they have claimed credit over a period.
It is in this connection that I find myself obliged to say something to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). If I have learned nothing else in the past 16 months, I have learned the value of patience—not a quality with which I am naturally endowed; but sometimes my patience wears very thin. When the hon. Member asks me or anyone who has had anything to do with this problem to face up to realities, I find that both arrogant and offensive. If there is one thing that people who deal with the problems of Northern Ireland, who live there or who, like me, go there have to face, it is certainly the realities. They are faced there on the ground.
The hon. Member spoke about removing from the people of Northern Ireland their citizenship. If I were a United Kingdom citizen who lived in Northern Ireland, I should find that just as offensive as if I were a United Kingdom citizen who lived in Erith and Crayford. I call see no difference at all. Some of the hon. Member's constituents would find it extremely offensive if it were suggested that their citizenship should be removed for some reason about which I am not at all clear.
Then the hon. Member said—this is what I really mind—that we are sending our soldiers to die for this constitution. I will have some words to say about the Bill and the constitution it provides, but that is not what our soldiers are doing in Northern Ireland. They have been there since 1969 to protect and to do their best to preserve law and order for our fellow citizens in the United Kingdom.
If the hon. Member keeps asking me about his poll, I will tell him what I think the answer would be. Like all polls, it would depend on the question that is put. If he put to his electors or anyone else the question "Do you wish to see law and order preserved in the United Kingdom, including your own area?" I think the answer would be that they would wish it. If they wish it, the only way in which our fellow United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland can have that law and order—if we can but achieve that and defeat the evil forces

—is by the presence there of British troops. There is, alas, no other way.
We all want to see a peace built up. We all want to see our Army reduced, but not before this objective is achieved. I am on very strong ground in saying this. I am backed by a much wider variety of people than on almost any other question. I have noted what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South rightly called the remarkable speech by the Taoiseach last weekend, when he added his voice to those who say that it would be a disaster if British troops were withdrawn from Northern Ireland. It would, because it would be a sign that the United Kingdom Government had not the will and determination to protect their citizens. That is something that I would find totally shaming for this Parliament, this House of Commons and this nation. I hope that I do not express myself unduly strongly but, having lived with this problem for some time now, I feel strongly about it.
I know that some of my actions can be criticised. There are those who say that, if something else were done by our forces, the problem would be handled better. There can be arguments, but on the basic will of the Government and our determination to defeat the men of violence there can be no argument. That is part of the issue. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that no political solution will succeed unless the military solution has come with it.
At the same time, I would make it clear that I believe equally passionately that a political solution is an essential ingredient in any overall solution and that we will not achieve a solution by military means alone. Those are facts of life which this House must live with and appreciate.
It is on that basis that I now turn to the political side of the solution. Here I can only say to the House that it is the easiest thing in the world in Northern Ireland to be destructive. The most difficult thing is to be constructive. It is easy to knock down any proposals that are nut up. There are solid arguments for knocking down practically any proposals that are put up. That is no way to go forward. I am the last person


to resent criticism of the proposals put forward in the Bill and I freely admit that there have been strong arguments put forward in favour of changes of one sort or another.
I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South and his hon. Friends. They have not attempted in any way to delay the Bill. I appreciate that personally they do not believe this is the right course. That is their decision. I have said that it is the best course which I and Her Majesty's Government can see for the way ahead. We do not know of any other. It is easy to knock ideas down. We believe that our way is the best we can devise. In that we have been supported very broadly, and I thank the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) for his support.
We believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said, that power sharing is undoubtedly extremely difficult to achieve but that getting the delicate balance right is the right way forward in the Northern Ireland situation.
There are those who say that it will not work. I believe that it must be right to do everything we can to make it work, because if it does not I do not believe we will remove the basic sense of conflict which undoubtedly exists in Northern Ireland and which cannot be avoided. It is inevitably the conflict inherent in a divided community. There are those who say that we have to accept divisions in a community and live with them, and act accordingly. That is a counsel of considerable despair and we have to move on the constructive side of trying to heal the divisions rather than simply accepting that they exist and living with them.
Therefore, I am convinced that this is the way that is right to try. This is the way we are determined upon. I noted with interest a point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He said that many things in the Bill were wrong or thoroughly offensive, but nevertheless he said that he wished to see the Assembly working. There are those in Northern Ireland who have expressed a contrary view in front of television cameras after seeing me. I am glad the hon. Member takes that view.
I believe that the basis on which the Assembly can and should work is the basis laid down in the Bill. The hon. Member will, I think, be the first to acknowledge that I have never been one on behalf of the Government to issue threats of any sort. I am not going to start now. I do not believe that that is the right way forward and I have a suspicion that they can in themselves be counter-productive. I do not consider that threats are the right way. I beg for a constructive approach. I do so on the basis of the Bill. I was glad to hear what the hon. Member for Belfast, West had to say about his party's constructive approach. I welcome such an approach because it is the only way forward.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that there is no luxury of time. Other hon. Members have made that perfectly clear. I do not believe that there is a luxury of time. Everything I can do to press ahead will be done, because I believe that this is not something which we can sit around continually discussing without reaching any conclusions. Success will not lie that way.
One other thought that the hon. Member for Salford, West put in my mind was that there is a very large area of economic and social development which could occupy most profitably the Members of the new Assembly, where they have a great contribution to make to Northern Ireland. In the past year the Government have made a considerable contribution in terms of jobs and of the employment position, under great difficulties. That contribution has been made with the taxpayer's money from the United Kingdom as a whole, both in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. But there is a great deal more to be done, and the Members of the Assembly can do it. These are issues on which I believe they can and should work together, and on which it is perfectly possible to work together. That is what we are asking them in the Bill to do.
For these reasons I have great hope that the discussions and the constructive approach shown by many hon. Members and many people in Northern Ireland can make the Bill succeed. It will be a sad day if it does not.
But I am the first to be a realist. I must be so. I have great hopes for the Bill, despite some of the gloom mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford, West. At the same time, there is no such thing in life in the end as a last chance. But there comes a time when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, patience can run out. It is very dangerous when it begins to do so.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,

That during the proceedings on the matter of the Steel Industry in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provision of Standing Order

I greatly hope that the Assembly, on the basis of the Bill, will work. It is to that end that all the efforts of the Government will be directed, at the same time as they arc determined to provide the right background for defeating the evil forces and the men of violence.

On that basis, I hope that the House will give the Bill the Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 5.

Division No. 184.]
AYES
[1.09 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Haselhurst, Alan
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Atkins, Humphrey
Hayhoe, Barney
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bitten, John
Hornby, Richard
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Redmond, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bray, Ronald
Hunt, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Kinsey, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Sproat, Iain


Clegg, Walter
Lamont, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Concannon, J. D.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Luce, R. N.
Sutcliffe, John


Dalyell, Tam
MacArthur, Ian
Tebbit, Norman


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
McCrindle, R. A.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McMaster, Stanley
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Drayson, G. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Waddington, David


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McNamara, J. Kevin
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


English, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitehead, Phillip


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Moate, Roger
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Money, Ernie
Younger, Hn. George


Glyn, Dr. Alan
More, Jasper



Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Hamish
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Green, Alan
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)





NOES


Molyneaux, James
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. James Kilfedder and


Paisley, Rev. Ian

Mr. James Maginnis.

No. 64 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after half-past Six o'clock.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (MEDICAL FACILITIES)

1.17 a.m.

Mr. Ray Carter: I did not anticipate earlier this evening having to wait quite so long for the Adjournment to come. It is a little late. As a consequence, the debate will not get the publicity a subject like this obviously deserves, but I am hoping that at least some of the media will take note of it; namely, the reciprocity of the regulations which now apply to this country upon our entering into the European Economic Community on 1st January.
A number of regulations immediately applied to us, and our nationals became subject to certain possibilities within the Community. Three of the regulations—1408/71, 574/2 and 878/73, the last two the implementing regulations—came into effect at that date. They are about arrangements by which nationals of the various EEC countries can obtain in other EEC countries medical and health facilities. The introductory booklet, SA 28, issued by the Department of Health and Social Security gives a very good account of these regulations.
In brief, they can be summarised as they are in the third paragraph of the introduction:
Persons covered by the Regulations who are on holiday or otherwise stay temporarily in a Community country will be entitled to medical treatment for sickness or accidents which require urgent attention on the same basis as insured nationals of that country.
The last part of that paragraph is particularly important because there were certain exclusions affecting Britain upon entering; self-employed people were specifically excluded, as were the unemployed, and students, and other groups of people who were in normal forms of employment.
My interest in this subject was raised by a constituent of mine who got in touch with me after discovering, purely by chance, that this regulation was now in force and was reminded by the person she was going to visit in France, who happened to work in the Embassy in Paris, that she should go armed with the certificate which would entitle her, if she became ill or had an accident, to treatment as a national while in France.
Her experience was that the local health and social security office knew nothing about the regulation, far less about the form, and advised her to go to the central office in Birmingham. She went there, and, after some search, a form CM 1 was produced. This was filled in in accordance with the document SA28 from which I have quoted, and she was then issued with certificate E111. Armed with this, she was able to go to France and was fortunately not ill. Had she been, she could have presented the certificate to the doctor and the various health departments and have been reimbursed for any expenses she might have incurred.
I took the matter up because she felt that not enough was known about the scheme and because I did not know enough about it. Further investigation on my part exposed what I now believe to be, and what is proved to be, a series of failures on the part of the Government properly to communicate to the public the fact that the scheme now exists and that there has been a great deal of incompetence by bureaucracy and other bodies should be responsible for bringing to the attention of the public, and of the travelling public particularly, the entitlements which they have now acquired as rights consequent upon our entry into the EEC.
There also appears to be a considerable amount of cheating by travel firms, insurance companies and other bodies responsible for administering the affairs of the travelling public.
I shall deal with the failures one by one and first with the publicity campaign, which, by any standard, has been quite appalling.
Hardly anybody in the city of Birmingham alone knows anything of this scheme. When my constituent went to the central office in Birmingham, she was told that only nine people had had the good fortune to know of the scheme and gone to that office and applied for the form CM1 to get the certificate E111.
When one considers how much the Government spent on their campaign throughout the country to convince people of the need for Britain to enter the EEC and become a fully participating member, there has been a paucity of effort in bringing home to the British public the


benefits which were held out to them and of which they should have been made fully aware as soon as we became members on 1st January.
An excellent article was written by Mary Kenny of the Evening Standard.
She made the round of travel firms and tried to find out from them precisely what they might know about this facility which would remove some financial burden from the travelling public who before 1st January would have had to take out insurance. She inquired at Clarksons precisely how it was informing its customers of the new arrangement. All she got from it was a bemused "What?" from the other end of the telephone line. She went to Thos. Cook and Son, Ltd. which one would have thought, with its long history and background in these matters, would know a good deal about the regulations. It might have known, for the agent of Cook's replied that it was not normal practice at Cook's to tell travellers about this unless they inquired.
It seems clear to me, coming as that does from Cook's, one of the great reputable travel concerns, that a number of people in the travel industry are hanging on to business to which, frankly, they have no entitlement. Undoubtedly they have large contracts with the insurance companies and get a commission on every premium that they are able to secure for an insurance company. Maybe, as the Cook's agent said to Mary Kenny, it is for purely economic reasons that they do not tell the travelling public precisely what their new rights are. When he replies the Minister must deal with that point. Why are premiums still being collected for health and medical insurance when there is no need to do so.
Why are self-employed persons specifically excluded from the scheme? On the Continent in the original Six all health schemes are contributory. The employee pays a certain sum into the national health and insurance fund. The Six insisted as part of our terms of entry that our self-employed people should be excluded from the new reciprocal arrangements. That is deplorable because for years foreigners have been able to come to this country and enjoy the full benefit of our health facilities.
As I read from the introductory pamphlet, every country in the enlarged Community has to provide the visitor from another member country with the same facilities as it accords its own citizens. That means that any self-employed person from France coming to Britain will be able to get treatment and facilities here which a self-employed United Kingdom citizen cannot obtain in France. I should like to be told that I am wrong, but I doubt that I am. I suspect that, as has always been the case, the Ministry does not attempt to recover expenses because of the cost of trying to do so.
That is a particularly important part of the criticism I level at the Government for the way they have handled these matters. There are about 5 million people in this country who are self-employed, or the dependants of self-employed persons, who are now specifically excluded from the arrangements. It means in effect that there is a form of double taxation. These people are paying through direct taxation a contribution towards the upkeep of a free health service, yet when they travel abroad they are having to take out private insurance cover.
For those people lucky enough to have discovered the facility which now exists, filled out the form CM 1, read the introductory pamphlet, got a certificate and gone on their holiday to one of the other countries of the Nine, what kind of treatment can be expected when they fall sick, break a leg or have some other accident? I have been given the clear impression by one or two correspondents that they do not receive helpful treatment when they get abroad. On the contrary, it seems that the medical professions in one or two countries, and bureaucracy generally, try to get out of the commitment which is clearly laid upon their countries and them as doctors or officials of ministries. I am sure that they know that Britain fully lives up to its commitment relating to the EEC. Indeed, we go far beyond that and care for citizens of other countries who come here temporarily and fall ill.
Travelling is increasing all the time. On the figures which I have been able to obtain, almost 5 million people a year visit the EEC. I imagine that a large


proportion of that number will have an accident—for example, a fall—and require medical attention. They might have a skiing accident, a road accident or a stomach upset. In that event they will need help of some kind. Clearly, the travelling public to the EEC alone should be made fully aware of their new rights as from 1st January.
This is no small matter for a family of five or six travelling abroad. The insurance cover which is now demanded by insurance companies varies from £1 to approximately £2·50 for a fortnight's holiday on the Continent. If we multiply that by 5 million it will be seen that there is a fair turnover for the insurance business. No wonder that there is an attempt, at least on the part of travel organisations and the insurance industry, to hang on to what must be a fairly lucrative form of business for them.
I remind the Minister of the Government's promise to the British people when the prospect of entry was held out to them. It seems, at least on the first time of asking, that those benefits are not immediately forthcoming.
I remind the Minister that we are now in the height of the holiday season. There is still time for a large part of the travelling public to save money which they need not spend. The Government should make a massive attempt to inform the travelling public of their new rights. I could deal with other rights which they now have relating to social security, industrial injury benefit and a whole range of other benefits, but there is not time to do so. The insurance companies should be immediately tackled and asked precisely why they are taking premiums from persons for coverage which strictly they do not require. The travelling organisations should be asked—certainly Cook's and Clarkson's—why they are taking insurance premiums which are not strictly needed.
I hope that some attempt will be made to discover from the people who have filled in the form and received a certificate what their experience was on the Continent when they had to avail themselves of the new facilities—namely, when they had to go to a doctor and ask for help or when they had to go to hospital to receive treatment for an injured limb. Let us find out how they fared. Let us

discover whether their experience was satisfactory and whether the certificate met with an instant reception from officialdom and from the medical profession within the EEC.
These are questions which should be answered. Indeed, really they should never have had to be asked, because the Government, as from 1st January last, should have carried out a massive campaign of advertising, informing the insurance companies of the new regulations and what they were expected to do. Even at this late stage, there is an opportunity for the Government to retrieve the situation and inform the travelling public of the new regulations and facilities.

1.35 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I very much welcome the subject which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) has chosen for the debate because it gives yet a further opportunity for increased publicity in an area where I share the concern he has expressed that there should be as wide and full a programme of publicity as can be managed. The publicity we want to give is at least one of the most important early benefits which we have derived from our membership of the European Economic Community. The Migrant Workers Regulations, which came into operation in the United Kingdom on 1st April, provide for the retention of the social security rights of citizens moving from one country to another, very much on the lines of the bilateral reciprocal arrangements that preceded our accession. The medical treatment benefits which the regulations make available to people travelling or working in the other new member States are new and represent a net beneficial increment to our nationals. This is a genuine gain to the majority of our people visiting or working in other countries of the EEC.
The benefits provided are emergency medical treatment for people on holiday or temporary visits in other Community countries, and medical benefits on the same terms as the nationals of the country concerned for any of our nationals permanently residing in another Community country. The treatment is not necessarily given completely free, and I


hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that when I come to a later point about insurance cover. In some countries it is free and in others the patient pays a proportion of the cost in exactly the same way as the nationals of that country.
Another point which the hon. Gentleman fairly made was that the logic of the scheme is that visitors, always a tiny minority in the population of any given country, receive benefits as they would be provided to the nationals who are in the majority and not in respect of the services which are available to the visitors in their own homes. There is not an unreasonable logic behind that approach, although it necessarily is the case that some visitors will derive benefits which are not exactly the same in each country because the pattern of policies adopted in member States is clearly based on their own democratic choice of the systems they prefer. This is part of the agreement between the nations.
Unfortunately, these benefits are not available to everyone, although they are to most. Those covered are employed persons and their dependants, retirement pensioners and widow beneficiaries and their dependants. The self-employed are not included, for reasons I shall come to, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to do all we can, from our position of strength within the Community as a full member, to secure an extension of the provision for the self-employed.
There is now a long-term trend within the older Community countries towards the inclusion of the self-employed categories within the national insurance schemes. It is far from fruition and fulfilment of our standards, but it is a movement which is now under way. We shall push against this open door.
It is necessary to produce evidence of entitlement to medical treatment benefit. That is done through the issue of an entitlement notice, Community form E111. Application for this should be made at a local national insurance office on our domestic United Kingdom form CM1. I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about the holiday season being in full spate. Intending travellers should

make application as soon as possible when they know they will be going. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to remind those who are going on holiday to EEC countries later this year to make application through CM1 for the relevant Community form E111 as soon as possible and certainly in good time.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having replied to his letter of 11th June. I was about to send a reply when I learned that he had secured the debate. I thought it would be better to postpone the letter and write immediately afterwards.
I should like to explain why the self-employed and non-employed sections of the community are not covered by EEC regulations. Basically, it is because the regulations are made under Article 51 of the Treaty of Rome, which relates to the movement only of employed persons within the Community. From a positive point of view, over 90 per cent. of our people benefit under the new regulations, whilst no pre-existing rights were removed from any class of our people, including the self-employed. The self-employed continue to benefit from the bilateral agreements on social security which already existed with each of the other member States. Except in the case of Denmark, these do not cover health care for visitors, but it is our intention to do all we can to extend coverage from 90 per cent. of our people to the full 100 per cent.
I should like to say something about publicity. In October 1972, in preparation for our entry into the Common Market, the Government undertook a publicity campaign. As part of that campaign they prepared a booklet "Europe—a checklist" as a guide to sources of information and advice on EEC matters. This checklist included references to medical treatment in EEC countries for both workers and visitors going to another Community country, and was widely distributed to firms, trade and professional associations, libraries, local authorities and the like. At the same time, my Department issued a Press notice giving details of the new facilities and the availability of the leaflet SA26 entitled "Social Security and the EEC".
At the time of our entry on 1st January this year, a letter was sent to the Association of British Travel Agents giving details of medical care arrangements under the EEC regulations and suggesting that travel agents should hold a supply of our application forms CM1 for a certificate of entitlement, E111, and the explanatory leaflet SA28 from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. The Association of British Travel Agents undertook to advise its members accordingly. Other tour operators have taken part in this arrangement.
I will now say a word or two about private insurance. Although some free medical care may be available in Community countries—and there are payments to be made either in full for the self-employed or partially for those in the employed category—most people still wish to take out adequate private insurance cover for such items as holiday cancellations, personal injuries, hotel expenses arising from sickness, loss of belongings, repatriation and a host of associated problems arising from serious illness. It goes much beyond the limited definition of medical cover.
Most insurance policies are of the package type covering a whole range of benefits negotiated by tour operators and believed to be relatively cheap in comparison with similar coverage which might have to be taken out by an individual. It must obviously remain the responsibility of the traveller to make up his mind what cover he requires. He can always opt out of insurance if he does not want it. But there are benefits for him even if he comes within the employed category if he falls ill in a Community country where payments ale normally necessary for a proportion of the charge. However, the policy of private insurance companies is not a matter in which I can intervene. There is no evidence of deliberate misrepresentation or of cheating, which was the strong word which the hon. Gentleman used.
We have found the Association of British Travel Agents very co-operative, and several tour operators have taken the

trouble to provide the explanatory leaflet that we have made available. A letter was also sent to the Confederation of British Industry suggesting that the larger employers at least might like to hold supplies of the application form and leaflet. In the same month the Citizens Advice Bureaux produced a circular dealing with the United Kingdom's entry to the EEC and mentioning the new regulations on medical benefit.
The arrangements in question first operated from 1st April 1973 and, with this in mind a more detailed Press notice was issued on 28th February to the national Press and to travel agency periodicals and other holiday magazines giving details of the new arrangements and indicating that application forms and the leaflet SA28 dealing specifically with medical treatment for holiday makers and other temporary visitors to countries of the EEC would be available from any of the Department's local social security offices and from any employment exchange. These give detailed information country by country on the procedure to follow in order to obtain treatment under the regulations.
At the time that the regulations came into force, key radio and television programmes were circularised and an announcement was made on the radio's Government information spot. A further Press notice was issued on 30th March which resulted in substantial Press coverage on 1st April, the day the regulations came into effect
My right hon. Friend replied to two Written Questions on the new arrangements, the first from the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), which was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29th January 1973——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Two o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

[MR. IFOR DAVIES in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Mr. Ifor Davies (Chairman)

Allason, Mr. James (Hemel Hempstead)

Benyon, Mr. W. (Buckingham)

Blenkinsop, Mr. Arthur (South Shields)

Bray, Mr. Ronald (Rossendale)

Douglas, Mr. Dick (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

Dunn, Mr. James A. (Liverpool, Kirk-dale)

Farr, Mr. John (Harborough)

Hamilton, Mr. Michael (Salisbury)

Hardy, Mr. Peter (Rother Valley)

Hawkins, Mr. Paul (Norfolk, South-West)

Hiley, Mr. Joseph (Pudsey)

NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

Resolved,

That if the proceedings on the Nature Conservancy Council Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Thursday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Nature Conservancy Council Bill [Lords] ought to he a read a Second time.
In its 24 years of life, the Nature Conservancy has had somewhat of a chequered career as an organisation in Great Britain. It was born by Royal Charter in March 1949, after six years of gestation in reports from committees,

Lawson, Mr. George (Motherwell)

Maclennan, Mr. Robert (Caithness and Sutherland)

Oakes, Mr. Gordon (Widnes)

Owen, Mr. Idris (Stockport, North)

Page, Mr. Graham (Minister for Local Government and Development)

Parker, Mr. John (Dagenham)

Spearing, Mr. Nigel (Acton)

Spence, Mr. John (Sheffield, Heeley)

Younger, Mr. George (Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office)

Mr. J. F. Sweetman, Committee Clerk.

commissions councils and surveys, and was given statutory powers by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

In origin, the Nature Conservancy was, as its name implies, a body aiming primarily to conserve and, as a secondary objective, to carry out research. Accordingly, the Royal Charter directed it to provide scientific advice on the conservation and control of the natural flora and fauna of Great Britain, to establish, maintain and manage nature reserves in Great Britain, and to organise and develop related research and scientific services.

The Annual Report of the Natural Environment Research Council for 1971–72 describes very well the position of the


Conservancy within the Natural Environment Research Council. Page 81 of the Report states:
When the Conservancy was established in 1949, its functions included giving advice on the conservation and control of native plants and animals, establishing and managing nature reserves, notifying Sites of Special Scientific Interest to planning authorities, and undertaking the appropriate research in ecology.

Since becoming a component body of the Natural Environment Research Council in 1965, the Conservancy has continued to carry out these functions on the Council's behalf. Only a part of the Conservancy's duties are those usually associated with research councils. Much of its work entails managing land on the nation's behalf, in addition to giving ecological advice. It was a Conservancy and, so far as was required for the purpose of conservancy, it organised and developed research.

At its origin in 1949, the Conservancy's guardian was the Lord President of the Council, but that guardianship passed in 1964 to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. That gave the Nature Conservancy a blessing for its courtship with research which had been developing since about 1960 in a number of other reports of committees and commissions. It was a courtship of marriage between the Nature Conservancy and the Natural Environment Research Council, and, if I may put it this way, the conservancy girl married into the research family. The wedding was solemnised by the Science and Technology Act of 1965.

It is the almost unanimous view that the marriage has not been happy. To put it bluntly, this present Bill is a bill of divorcement. I think that I should now abandon this analogy of the "Hatches, matches and dispatches" column or I shall get into trouble.

Although, generally, the divorce is accepted as the best solution to this unhappy union, there is an argument as to whether the decree should be absolute and the whole of the functions of the Nature Conservancy Committee of the Natural Environment Research Council be transferred to a new body, or whether only part of the functions should be transferred.

There are some who say that nature conservancy in all its aspects—the management of nature reserves and research into nature conservancy—should be within one independent body. Others say that the two aspects of nature conservancy—management and research—should be divorced one from the other, that only management should be placed in an independent body and that all research—I stress the word "all" should be undertaken by the comprehensive research body, the Natural Environment Research Council. There are, of course, many shades of opinion between those two extremes.

The Government, as the Bill shows, incline to the latter view, that is, for an independent managing body commissioning research but able to carry out a certain amount of research itself. As a tenet of general policy in matters involving research, the Government believe in the concept of a customer-contractor relationship, which makes the distinction between management and research—the customer being the executive or general advisory body and the contractor being the expert in research.

As some of the members of this Committee will remember, we applied that principle to the Water Bill in relation to the National Water Council and the Water Research Centre. But I think that it would be unwise—and the debates in another place show this only too clearly—to be dogmatic or rigid in the application of this principle to the new Nature Conservancy Council.

For the new council which we propose in the Bill, there will be some 100 scientists on the staff, and it is neither easy nor necessary to erect an insurmountable fence between, on the one hand, the maintenance and management of reserves, the advice and dissemination of information and the assessment of commissioned research, and, on the other hand, the research itself. There is an area between the two where the parties involved can work together in research matters. Therefore, although one of the functions of the council will be as set out in Clause 1(1)(a)(iii)—
the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in the opinion of the Council is relevant to


the matters mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above"—
and that will be the general rule, the council will be empowered——

Mr. George Lawson: Does it say in "the opinion of the council"? I shall be quite happy if it does, but does it say that?

Mr. Page: Yes, indeed, as the Bill is now drafted, I draw the hon. Member's attention to Clause 1(1)(a)(iii).

Mr. Lawson: I apologise. The amended part of the subsection which concerns me does not say " in the opinion of the council", but perhaps we can come back to that point.

Mr. Page: I was quoting that as the general principle, and I was about to say that nevertheless the council will be empowered by Clause 1(4)(b)
to initiate and carry out such research directly related to their functions under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above as it is appropriate that they themselves should carry out instead of commissioning or supporting other persons under sub-paragraph (iii) of that paragraph".
The hon. Gentleman raises the question whether the council itself would decide whether that research was appropriate for it to carry out itself. I read the paragraph as meaning just that. I do not see that anyone else would be able to say what is appropriate to the council's duties as expressed elsewhere.

Mr. Lawson: Would it not be clear beyond doubt if in subsection (4)(b) we were to add after the words "carry out such research" words such as
as the Council considers appropriate".
Or
as the Council consider they themselves should carry out"?
That would leave no room for doubt. It could be considered in Committee.

Mr. Page: That is a Committee matter. Between now and Committee, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's observation.
I think that it would be wrong to say that the two quotations I have given from Clause 1 (1) and (4) overlap, or that the functions overlap, because that would give an incorrect idea that there is duplication. We want to ensure that the cogwheels engage smoothly so that the machinery of research runs effectively.
The customer-contractor relationship in research which I have tried to describe was not the only motive for setting up a management and advisory Nature Conservancy Council separate from a research council. In 1970, the Department of the Environment was created with the purpose of placing in one Government Department the total approach to the environment, the total approach to responsibilities stretching over both the built environment and the natural environment. The built environment, which includes, for example, reservoirs, roads, factories, blocks of flats, and so on, cannot be planned properly without full regard being paid to the natural environmental such as the hills, valleys, flora and fauna.
The responsibility for striking a balance between those two factors, the built and the natural environment, at once involves further responsibilities for conservation over a wide area including, again, conservation of both buildings and natural assets. Scotland has been fortunate in this matter, having always been in the happy position of being able to make a total approach by reason of the constitution of its Government. This has highlighted the fact that the omission of nature conservancy from the work of the Department of the Environment leaves a dangerous gap in its duties and responsibilities.
The Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on Land Resource Use in Scotland recommended that nature conservancy should be brought closer into planning development, that is, structure plans and other development matters which in England are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. It shows that Scotland is in advance of England and Wales in its total approach to the environment.
To leave the administration of nature reserves outside the Department of the Environment, and in a research body, the Natural Environment Research Council, rather than an administrative body—moreover, in a body under another Government Department—did not make sense. It is illogical for a Department responsible—in so far as the central Government is responsible—for conservation areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks, rivers, lakes,


coastal protection and so on to be deprived of nature conservancy responsibities, This function, too, should be within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment.
That is underlined, and, I think, will be more underlined, by the results of the nature conservation review, which was set up some six years ago as a thorough review of nature conservancy in this country.
I expect that that review will recommend a substantial increase in the area of nature reserves. This will have its impact upon land use planning, if the Government accept the recommendations which I expect the review to make. It may affect all sorts of development and development planning. A closer association of the Nature Conservancy Council with the Department of the Environment on these matters will make more effective our total approach to the environment, to planning, to land use and to the protection of the environment.
But—and here comes the issue which we shall find in discussion of the Bill—on the research side of nature conservancy, the Government think it right that it should benefit from being part of a wide research programme such as is carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council. That council has an overall responsibility for research, as we have an overall responsibility for the environment. It is right, I think, to leave the research side of nature conservancy to the Natural Environment Research Council. The NERC has indicated that the nature conservancy research side, which will be left to it if the Bill is passed as drafted, will become the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology—a part, as several other institutes are, of the Natural Environment Research Council.
As a consequence of the setting up of an institute of that kind within the Natural Environment Research Council, there will be a knitting together of the five geographically scattered stations at present under the Nature Conservancy Committee of the Natural Environment Research Council. The intention is that those research stations should remain under the Natural Environment Research Council.
If I may come back to my previous simile, if one is breaking up the matrimonial home there are bound to be some heartaches and nostalgia. The Nature Conservancy, as a committee of the Natural Environment Research Council, manages 135 nature reserves and the five research stations which I have mentioned—Merlewood, Monks Wood, Furzebrook, Norwich and Banchory. They will remain with the Natural Environment Research Council, as will some 250 of the 650 staff at present under the Nature Conservancy Committee.
The remaining 400 staff will become the staff of the new Nature Conservancy Council, and of that 400 about 100 will be scientists. Of the 250 who will remain with the Natural Environment Research Council, about 190 will be scientists; the others will be administrators.
If I may take an example to show how the change will work in practice—again, I shall be intrepid enough to take a Scottish example because it explains it well—research on the red deer is based at Banchory. That is where the desk and laboratory study of that important subject is carried out, by a team not only expert at the desk in a theoretical or academic way but expert in the field, in observation of the distribution and behaviour of the red deer.
That field work is done on the island of Rhum and at Glenfeshie. They are both nature reserves where the conservation branch of the Nature Conservancy Committee is carrying out both long-term and short-term projects on the red deer population and the range of vegetation. as well as other work, like re-afforestation, and all the work of managing a nature reserve and of animal husbandry. These projects need long-term and short-term research.
In future, with Banchory in the hands of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, and Rhum and Glenfeshie in the hands of the new Nature Conservancy Council, the council will commission its research from the Natural Environmental Research Council which will allocate it to the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. But some research will be undertaken by the Nature Conservancy Council itself—not only research, but the scientific aspects of conservation, in contact with the world


of science—because the Nature Conservancy Council will be encouraged to take part in international work in an awareness of the trends and needs of science in relation to nature conservancy, in the collection and evaluation of the performance of species, to develop ecological insight which will anticipate changes and problems, to interpret the results of research and the application of it to executive action and provide advice to Government Departments, local authorities and public bodies upon nature conservancy matters. That is the scientific side of the Nature Conservancy Council as we see it in future. I express it more as the scientific aspect of its work rather than research. It will entail some research appropriate to its function, but a scientific evaluation of the executive work is needed.
How will the Nature Conservancy Council afford to do all this in a progressive way?—to do all this and commission and pay for research by the Natural Environment Research Council and make grants to other bodies, as permitted by Clause 3, and expand its work if the nature conservancy review recommends what I expect it to recommend, to keep abreast and, in many instances, give the lead in international developments?
The council will be financed by grant-in-aid from the Department of the Environment, as under Clause 4, but I cannot tell how much it will be. This year, the grant-in-aid £1¾ is million, of which £380,000 is for commissioning research. I shall be very disappointed if we are not able to improve on those figures as the Nature Conservancy Council develops.
I am anxious that the new Nature Conservancy Council should be in business as soon as possible. I have in mind 1st October next as an appropriate date for putting it into business. There are, of course, a number of preparatory steps to be taken for the setting up of the council.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced that Sir David Serpell, formerly permanent secretary of the Department of the Environment, will he the first chairman of the new council. Once the Bill has reached the Second Reading stage, the Department intends, in accordance with precedent, and in consultation with the chairman-designate, to

take such further action on the preparatory steps as will be needed. In particular, steps will be taken—this is important—to facilitate the early selection, from a wide field, of the chief officer of the new council. The chief officer will be in a very important position as regards the success and progress of the council.
I hope that the Committee will approve the motion.

10.58 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: We on this side do not oppose either the motion or the principle of the Bill, largely because of the amendment wisely made in another place by the Government, who suffered a defeat on the matter initially and then came back with a better amendment which would give some important research functions to the new Nature Conservancy Council. The Minister gave some very fair examples of the sort of division of research responsibility which might arise. But I hope that they were examples of what he foresaw, not of subsequent directions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), both of whom have a keen and long interest in all matters of conservancy, received a specific reply from the Secretary of State. He said that he intended, within the resources available to it from time to time, that the proposed council should itself decide what research it should initiate and have carried out by its own staff, and what research it should commission or support. I feel sure that the Minister was giving examples for the benefit of the Committee, not indicating, as I am sure will he made clear later, what will or will not be done by the Nature Conservancy Council by way of research.
The right hon. Gentleman pursued an interesting analogy with divorce, taking the council from conception through gestation, birth, marriage and so on. I shall not pursue the analogy because, if we were to give a bill of divorcement under the present matrimonial law, we should be concluding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. That would be a rather strong way to put it. Quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman stopped at a certain point.
I prefer to put my analogy in ecological terms. I agree that the Conservancy has had a chequered existence,


largely because it suffered from so many transplants. Now, I think that it will be in its rightful home with the Department of the Environment. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is right that the Department which has overall control and responsibility for the whole of our environment ought to be the body with which the Nature Conservancy Council finds its natural home. When the council was set up in 1948, having nowhere else to go it was under the umbrella of the Lord President of the Council. In 1965, it came into the domain of the Department of Education and Science. In neither of those years was there a Department of the Environment, but now that that Department has been created it is obviously the proper place for the Nature Conservancy Council.
We ought to be concerned now about the new functions, powers and resources of the council since today, far more than in 1949 or 1965, there is acute public awareness and concern about our natural environment and what is happening to it, and a realisation that, unless steps are taken by way of research, reserves, advice and all the other ways in which the council has the power to act, there will be many species of plants and animals which, having lived for thousands of years in this country, will disappear. The problem is as acute as that. I am encouraged greatly by the knowledge that this concern is felt especially by young people at school, college and university who realise that, unless action is taken, and taken quickly, there will be many strains of wild life no longer in existence in this country.
The old Conservancy had three roles, the role of the land owner and manager of estates, the role of adviser to other bodies, and the research role. On its role as land owner, I say only that I was encouraged to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the likely report which would indicate that many more nature reserves should be created, that more money must be spent on this, and that it is hoped that the Government will give the necessary resources to the Nature Conservancy Council to carry out the likely recommendations in that report.
Nature reserves are important, but there is a danger that, when conserva-

tion is considered in the context of a nature reserve, what is natural almost becomes artificial. There was a popular song recently on conservation, referring to trees, saying,
We've taken all the trees and put them in a tree museum. And we charge a dollar and a half just for people to see "em".
Although reserves are important in all parts of the country, and more money needs to be spent on them one must be careful not to over-concentrate on reserves and under-concentrate on the natural environment. The most important rôle of the Nature Conservancy Council to my mind, wilt be as an adviser and disseminator of knowledge about conservation—separate rôles, but both vital.
There have been many changes in our legislation on conservation even since 1965. There are the countryside parks. There are the nature reserves—I do not know how many, but possibly the right hon. Gentleman can tell the Committee—established by county and district councils in different parts of the country where there is obviously an important advisory rôle for the council, because these reserves are separate from the national reserves which it creates. I hope that the county councils which have responsibility for the countryside parks will have advice and assistance, and under Clause 3, if necessary, grants from the council for their work.
There are many other bodies which could benefit more than they have in the past from advice from the Nature Conservancy Council. The Forestry Commission is certainly a better organisation than it was. It has nature trails, and it allows the public to enter forests on its land. But does it do that to the extent that it could? The Forestry Commission is the country's biggest landowner, and I feel that the new council could do an enormous amount to conserve both flora and fauna by introducing co-operative schemes with the Forestry Commission to bring in, so far as practicable, members of the public, particularly children, on nature trails so that they could understand the country as a living thing and not merely something to be looked at in picture books.
When children, particularly town children, understand the country, they treat it with respect. It is important in these


days of increased mobility that a knowledge and understanding of the country is got across especially to town children. The country child, because he lives there, knows what it is about. But the town child can often do a great deal of damage unwittingly. Sometimes he does it by vandalism, but that is a permanent problem in both town and country. A great deal of good would come out of cooperation between the Forestry Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council.
Nationalised industries, particularly British Rail, could co-operate a great deal on conservation. In the old days very little could grow on railway banks because cinders that blew out of the engine burned grass and heath and nothing could take root. But, with the introduction of diesel and electric trains, the fire-free environment on the sides of railway lines offers greater possibilities for conservation. I hope, therefore, that British Rail will consult with the Nature Conservancy Council. Similarly, motorways, which to many minds despoil the countryside, nevertheless already have on their sides and banks, because there are no pedestrians on them, created places which present a natural, safe home for wild life.
Water authorities have already been mentioned. Here again, there could be good co-operation between the Nature Conservancy Council, the Water Space Amenity Commission and regional water authorities to great public benefit. All these are national bodies.
There is a rôle in the dissemination of knowledge as well as advice which goes more to the grassroots than that. There are many schools—I have one in my constituency—which are thinking of acquiring derelict land to turn into small nature reserves available not only to the school but to all members of the community surrounding it. The Nature Conservancy Council could advise such schools, which quite possibly would not be asking for a grant but would be carrying out the scheme from its own resources. Small schemes such as these are of vital importance in addition to the big land holdings and big reserves.
Small land owners such as householders also can help to preserve species. In my youth there seemed to be more moths and butterflies than at present.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: And frogs.

Mr. Oakes: And frogs. In an urban area where they have to contend with raids by biology laboratories as well as with traffic, frogs hardly exist. Once, they were plentiful in urban areas. Butterflies and moths are becoming a rarity in towns not merely because of insecticides but because of weedkillers. Many of the plants on which caterpillars live are no longer in plentiful supply. My point is that the householder can do something, too, if he sets apart a tiny area of his garden or allotment to allow certain wild plants to grow which will provide food for the caterpillars and butterflies so that the ecological chain of plant, insect and bird may continue in town areas.
In that respect also the dissemination of knowledge by the Nature Conservancy Council can be important. It could be done, in particular, through young people and children in schools and colleges because they are naturally interested in their environment and in conservation.
Basically, we wish the Bill well. We should like specific clarification of the right of the Nature Conservancy Council to determine what research it wants to do itself and what is to be done by the NERC. Apart from that, it is a question of resources, and I hope that the Government will give to the new council the resources it needs for the protection, preservation and conservation of the flora and fauna of these islands.

11.12 a.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: I have never been very keen on divorce, and I am not keen on this one. I understand the reasoning behind the Government's decision, but I still have not heard sufficient evidence to justify breaking up what seemed to be an arrangement which was working well. I am strengthened in this opinion by the fact that the late Lord Howick, who did so much work for the Nature Conservancy as its chairman, took the same view.
We have heard this morning that a large number of scientists will still be on what might be described as the administrative side of conservancy, and I believe that this will give rise to considerable muddle and difficulty among members of the public. I take as an example a naturalist trust which covers my constituency, the Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire


and Berkshire Naturalist Trust. That trust runs a number of nature reserves and has had a good working relationship with the Nature Conservancy. The problems which it has put to the Nature Conservancy are in some respects purely administrative, asking how it should do this or that in its reserve. Other problems have concerned research. Now, are these requests to be channelled through the new Nature Conservancy Council or will they go straight to the NERC? That is one question.
We have heard that it is essential that the council should be under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. I question that. The Forestry Commission was mentioned a moment ago by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). That body is not under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. The National Trust, I appreciate, is somewhat different.
I feel strongly about this because the Nature Conservancy will have to fight, and fight hard, against a number of interests to preserve the country's nature resources. We all remember the episode concerning the reservoir in County Durham where they were up against industry. I have a more local problem, where a motorway went through an area which was not a nature reserve but was an area of special scientific interest. The Nature Conservancy was called in aid to resist that part of the motorway route or to move it slightly so that the area could be preserved. But in that instance it took a neutral view, and the motorway was built through the area.
Therefore, I question whether it will be to the advantage of nature conservancy and, indeed, the country as a whole, to have this body a child of the Department of the Environment. We must wait and see. It is not as though we were taking a cataclysmic and irretrievable step today. As we have already heard, there have been a number of changes over the years regarding the Conservancy, and we may not have found the right answer—indeed, I do not think that we have—in the Bill. Therefore, we must watch it and see what happens. That is as far as I am prepared to go this morning.
When one hears of the "Institute of Terrestrial Ecology". the mind begins to

boggle. Whether a butterfly or a bird is terrestrial or celestial I do not know, but I assume that this organisation will take care of the whole. I shall be grateful for enlightenment when my right hon. Friend replies.

11.17 a.m.

Mr. Lawson: I should definitely have shared, and to some measure I still do share, the uneasiness of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). I have, however, been brought to the conclusion that, whether we like it or not, the separation of the Nature Conservancy from the NERC has virtually taken place. The dispute arose about whether, with the separation of the Nature Conservancy from the NERC—this is how the Second Reading debate in the other place went—the new council should be totally deprived of any research facilities of its own.
If the Bill had emerged from another place in that form, I should have been very much opposed to it. I would rather have seen it withdrawn than take that form, much though I understand that in both the Nature Conservancy and the NERC the staff want this matter settled so that they know where they are and can get ahead with the work.
The other place, however, came up with an astounding and most heartening display of interest and knowledge on this matter, and as a result of the discussion there their Lordships expressed a three-to-one overwhelming opinion that the Nature Conservancy Council must have research facilities. The appropriate amendment was subsequently agreed, an amendment not to the old function of research of the Nature Conservancy but giving a power to carry out research in pursuit of its function.
I am prepared to accept this description of how the new council will operate. I regret that, because we do not have HANSARD these days, members of the Committee will not have had access to a series of answers to Questions which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and I put down. They will appear as Written Answers in HANSARD of 21st June. The answers came from the Secretary of State himself, and I am taking what he said as the Government's opinion. I am concerned that the Government's opinion enunciated in answer to Questions should be clearly seen as setting


out the position as it will be. I am not sure that the Bill as drafted properly clarifies that point.
For example, in answer to a Question as to the Council's powers to initiate for itself what research should be carried on in pursuit of its functions, the Minister said:
… the proposed council should themselves decide what research they should initiate and have carried out by their own staff and what research they should commission or support.
That is clear enough. I would like to see Clause 1(4)(b), drafted to remove the dubiety that appears in the present wording. It appears that somebody else might decide what is "appropriate" research. I should like to see it put beyond doubt that it will be the council itself which will decide what is appropriate research.
A Nature Conservancy Council set up with powers to commission and support research will be a very strange organisation if it is not at the same time recognised that it can itself sensibly decide the kind of research in which it should engage. I would say that that research bears directly upon its functions. I hope I do not appear to be too conceited, but I am prepared to say, "Let these stations go to the NERC, but let the new council work out for itself what it wants to do."
I was somewhat doubtful when the Minister talked about the research into red deer. The same might apply to research into grouse in the area. I was slightly thrown out when I questioned who would carry on the research into grouse, which has been conducted by the Nature Conservancy, to learn that this would be a function of the new body, the National Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Like the lion. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), I find the very choice of the name suggests something remote from the practices I should want to see.
My doubt about the National Institute of Terrestrial Ecology—the matter is referred to in another Question although the institute is not named—was that it would seek to duplicate the present functions of the Nature Conservancy Council and seek to grow up as a natural rival to council. I should not wish to see that come about.
I am prepared to take the assurances as satisfactory assurances, but I should like to see the Bill made clearer in certain respects. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and so I shall try to be brief. I have spent a good deal of time on this matter with my colleagues and we shall no doubt continue to study the subject. I am concerned that the new council shall be able to fulfil the kind of rôle that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs envisaged. I quote from paragraph 390 on page 98 of the Select Committee's Report:
we recommend that an investigation should be undertaken of how best to extend the remit of the Nature Conservancy so that it is consulted by planning authorities in the formulation and implementation of their structure plans, and so that it might be able as of right"—
it might slightly comfort the hon. Member for Buckingham to see that we use the words "as of right" so that it is an independent body, certainly Government financed, but independent—
to express its views on important changes of use which are outside planning law, and bring the intention of section 66 home to all public bodies in respect of their functions relating to land.
Section 66 of the Scottish Countryside Act, which, I believe, is similar to Section 11 in the English Countryside Act, draws the attention of all public bodies to the importance of their not doing things that will destroy conservation, amenity and so on. We were, and are, concerned that we should have a powerful body to deal with the conservation gap mentioned by the Minister. If the Nature Conservancy Council were confined to dealing only with nature reserves, it would not be of much interest to me.
I want to see the new council pervade the countryside, to have a voice, as of right, in what is happening. Conservation is not simply to preserve, but to understand all these multiple processes, processes which, unknowingly, we are setting on foot and which could destroy us as well as other forms of life.
When I hear someone say that he is more concerned with people than with ducks, I shake my head. That is the kind of statement which shows that some people do not realise how interrelated everything is. The body whose business it is best to understand the interrelationship is the Nature Conservancy Council.
I want to see it pervade the countryside and to have the resources to do so.
I should like to say to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is nodding in agreement, that I was disappointed that when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set up the advisory council on North Sea oil development he did not even ask the advice of the Nature Conservancy in Scotland despite the enormous amount of work it has done in the Moray Firth and Cromarty Firth areas. I would not suggest that it should be allowed to appoint someone to the council, but I should have thought that it would be consulted and invited to make suggestions. But it did not happen and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rectify the omission.
What I should like, and I imagine that it is what the Committee would want, is an effective Nature Conservancy Council. Let the NERC get on with its research work in various fields—it is a research organisation—but it is not the rôle of the NERC to intervene and give advice; that is the rôle of the Nature Conservancy Council.
Perhaps in Committee we can discuss other aspects in greater detail. I should like to know how some things are to be done and how resources may be built up. However, following the assurances that the hon. Member for Abingdon and I received, I should like the Bill to go through quickly soon to be followed by the setting up of the new Nature Conservancy Council.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. John Farr: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals, but I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has said about Departmental responsibility. It is true that the Department of the Environment is a gigantic administrative body and it must often find itself in internal conflict when, for instance, a new road project or a new housing estate clashes with the development of a nature reserve or a site of special scientific interest. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us more to justify this change of Departmental responsibility. I cannot help thinking that if I were in charge of a Department, outside the Department of

the Environment, and in that Department's charge I had responsibility for the promotion and preservation of our natural resources, I would fight for my Departmental responsibilities with more vigour than the Minister of the Environment who, after all, will have the ultimate say in deciding whether land is to be used for roads, railways, housing estates or nature reserves. Therefore, in a way, with the proposed transfer of responsibility, there is a chance that in the long run the interests of the conservation of natural resources in this country may be losing out on the deal.
While I welcome the Bill I should like my right hon. Friend to assure the Committee that when the Bill is enacted and the new system gets under way a little more life and vigour will be put into the whole system of SSSIs—sites of special scientific interest.
A good deal of lip-service has been paid to these projects which were set up under Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968. Although about 3,000 of them have been established throughout the country, the reason why they are falling down and why they will not play a great part in helping to conserve our national resources in the future is that only very few—two or three—receive financial support through either the NERC or under section 15 of the Act.
I mention this because, as hon. Members will know, sites of special scientific interest have not necessarily to be acquired by the Nature Conservancy. More often they are the property of farmers, landowners, or sometimes small groups of naturalists. Naturalist societies in towns get together, buy a site here or there by clubbing together and then get the site registered as an SSSI.
Without some form of financial support these sites will not flourish. Land which is not earmarked for housing—land for agricultural use—has doubled in value and cost in the last 12 months. There is now a direct disincentive to any person concerned with agriculture to preserve a site as an SSSI. In the past, he might have been able to afford to leave a boggy acre or two here or there for one bird to nest in or perhaps for a particular type of flora to flourish. But with the cost of land today he is foolish if he does not get it drained quickly.
Unless my right hon. Friend takes steps to see that arrangements are made to support land owners and others interested in preserving our natural heritage with some form of financial encouragement and unless a more energetic outlook is taken, the whole scheme will be doomed to failure. If this does not happen one of the greatest opportunities which this change will bring about will be lost.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will give us some encouragement in this respect. It would be welcomed by both sides of the Committee.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for the possibilities that emerge for the development of the work of the new Conservancy Council. I share his enthusiasm partly because of nostalgic memories of being a member of the old Conservancy and memories of some of the work I have seen being done.
We are looking at the paper providing for administrative assistance but we are talking about a range of exciting and important work. Whether we are considering the exciting work in progress on the Island of Rhum and the excitement and joy of seeing some of the sheerwater colonies on that island, or whether we are talking about Merlewood and the link-up, in that case, with Moorhouse, it illustrates the fact that whatever provisions we make there must be a sane working relationship between the two sets of bodies, the NERC of the old days, and the longer-term research at the scientific centres that have been mentioned, and at the areas such as Moorhouse and so on away up on the Pennines.
There must be a well-intentioned good relationship between the long-term scientists and those on the spot both with management and reserves and, of course, with research too. I entirely share the views of others who were disturbed about the possibility that there will be an attempt completely to hive off the research people from those working on the reserves, whose interests are properly divided between management and research work. Many of us have seen the work going on and would not have believed that management

and research could be separated. Therefore we are glad that a change has been proposed in another place that gives the Bill quite a different look.
I welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and others to achieve clarity in working out the Bill. Whatever we put in a Bill, whatever we say in regulations or in answers to Questions, at the end of the day we must come to a more human relationship between the two bodies because they will, on many occasions, be working on the same spot.
I was interested in the anxiety expressed about the dangers that might emerge from the Nature Conservancy Council being too tightly enclosed within the Department of the Environment. On balance it is right that it should be there. There are a lot of jobs I can see it undertaking. I hope that it may inform and, in the widest sense of the word, educate the Department.
I understand the anxiety lest there be any attempt to crib or confine it in any independent views it may wish to express. Conservancy work in the past might have been criticised because it was under a Government Department and therefore should not have been as free as it was. It undertook a great job of work among the whole range of the countryside campaigns and conferences held in 1970 and gave the initial lift to the whole concept of public understanding of some of the issues of conservation. It gave backing to both the European Conservation Year and the United Nations Conference at Stockholm.
The sense of independence and freedom it has always enjoyed has been very important. I hope and believe that that will be as true of the future as it has been of the past. I share the view that more and more people are coming to understand the importance of this area, the interconnection between different forms of living creatures in our society. The new Conservancy has an immense educational rôle to play. I hope that even though the direct links with the Department of Education and Science are being broken, in one sense, administratively, every effort will be made to maintain the closest contact with the whole range of educational development.
The new work we are undertaking in our schools, in early contact with problems of ecology, is very exciting and it can be an introduction to understanding wider planning needs, as well as ecological study. I regard the possibilities as very great.
May I mention one feature in the Countryside Act 1968? We wrote in a declaratory clause which said that all Departments had to give special attention to the environmental problems, to amenity and natural history. It was left at that. There was no way in which that excellent declaration could be carried through. I always wanted to see some way in which we could ensure that Departments were asked for some account of what they were doing in carrying out their part of the undertaking.
It could be that the Nature Conservancy Council might accept some rôle in this kind of supervision. That was a comment I made in a report on behalf on COENCO some time ago. That is one of the many ways in which the Nature Conservancy Council can properly play a big part within a wider Department as well as expressing its clear independence. In that hope, which I am sure we will examine in more detail in Committee, I welcome the changes that have been made and wish the staff concerned every good fortune in the future.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sure we would all agree with the expressions and hope which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has voiced. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Like him, I am extremely concerned about sites of scientific interest. Many people are unaware of the fact that they may live within a matter of a few hundred yards of such a site. I have one in my constituency, and I do not think that more than 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of the local population is fully aware of it, although many people visit the wood which the site covers. We need a great deal more publicity, as well as more support, to protect and extend interest in these areas.
On the other hand, while I agree with the hon. Member for Harborough, I find myself in some disagreement with the

hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Benyon). He expressed the hope that the enactment of the Bill would not be irretrievable. I hope that it will be irretrievable, at least for 10 or 20 years. The hon. Gentleman was right to remind the Committee that the former chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council. Lord Howick, did not wish to see the Nature Conservancy hived off from the NERC. However, at the same time, the Nature Conservancy Council discussed the matter in July 1971, and although the chairman may not have agreed, the majority of members were desirous of seeing the Nature Conservancy established as being independent. Those people are entitled to that view. Their experience may have justified it.
I hope that we shall see a permanent arrangement. There have been too many rumours of changes and too much experimentation in this area. What we need is a settled organisation which will have vigour in the capacity to promote the necessary causes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) was extremely clear in expressing the official point of view of the Opposition, that we need a period of settled arrangements for vigour to be applied. However, the Minister did not appear to accept in sufficiently good grace the fact the Nature Conservancy Council should operate a considerable research function. I hope that I am misinterpreting the Minister's comments, but I do not think that we have had a sufficient assurance from him. I hope that he will be informed of my comments.
The Minister seemed to be somewhat grudging in his acceptance of the decision of another place that the research capacity should continue. I hope that we can have an assurance and guarantee that that research function will be sufficiently adequate.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is correct, and the study of grass will be research undertaken by the National Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, not by the Nature Conservancy Council, then our fears as to the willingness and enthusiasm of the Government's acceptance of the change imposed by the other place will be justified. The Minister told us that under present arrangements the Nature Conservancy Council will operate on a budget


of almost £1¾ million. The figure given in the other place was £1·74 million in the current year, which would be equivalent to the sum of £1·4 million in 1971–72.
That is a substantial increase but it is not an increase in terms of value, it is a reflection of the appalling inflation inflicted upon us by the Government recently. The Nature Conservancy Council will have £1·74 million, out of which it will have to pay for some, although only a modicum, of research.
Out of that sum the council will also have to administer the machinery, provide for the national committees, manage 135 nature reserves, and according to the figure given by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), 3,000 sites of scientific interest. Therefore, the council will deal with research, administration, management of the reserves and sites of scientific interest and a colossal number of inquiries from public and private bodies. It will have to be prepared increasingly to advise and inform bodies and individuals with a relevant interest. All that must be done with £1·74 million.
The Minister expressed the hope that the council would be able to lead international developments. I do not know how much leadership we could provide out of what remains of £1·74 million. It is not much. I should have thought that a cosmetics manufacturer, for instance, would be likely to spend that sort of money promoting a new brand of lipstick. I do not think that this is a satisfactory situation.
I agree that the Minister accepted that the position may not be adequate. He said that he would be disappointed if a little more than £1·74 million was not provided. But I do not consider that an expression of a possible disappointment is adequate. We need a guarantee and an assurance that money will he forthcoming so that the purposes of the Nature Conservancy Council may be served, and that we shall be able to play a part, let alone lead, international developments in this sector.
On the other hand, the Minister may be relying on one part in the Bill to which I do not object, but which in view of the £1·74 million argument one might look at somewhat wryly, namely, Clause 1(4)(a), which says:

The Council shall have power—
(a) to accept any gift".
It may be that the Government are relying on private charity. It may be that they are relying on customers of the NERC paying for services. I hope that that will not mean that the Nature Conservancy Council will feel that it has to give priority of attention to those who can afford to make a grant or payment. I do not object to the capacity of the council to accept grants, gifts, bequests and so on. That is perfectly reasonable. It is a dangerous situation, however, and we need to be assured that adequate "defence" arrangements will be made to ensure that priorities are by merit and not according to payment.
I do not consider that the Minister should rely on the gap, which will clearly exist if it does not exist now, being filled from private charitable sources. One reason for saying this is that it seems to me increasingly that if charitable organisations wish to raise money they have to be prepared to put a great deal into the promotional campaign. They have to employ fund-raisers, who, I understand are not inexpensive. The Nature Conservancy Council does not have the money to embark upon a fund-raising campaign. I hope therefore that the Minister will not expect too much from that provision.
Subsection (3) will allow the Nature Conservancy Council to make grants. How the Minister expects the Nature Conservancy Council to provide grants out of £1·74 million is really bewildering. Yet grants are necessary. Some county trusts like the Oxford, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire Trust and the Yorkshire Trust—of which I am a member—are doing a very good job and succeeding. However, there are certain areas in the voluntary sphere where real needs exist and where trusts are insufficient to deal with them, and where a grant would he necessary and highly desirable. But £1·74 million would not equip the Nature Conservancy Council to carry out its obligation in those areas.
The Forestry Commission should be complimented on its tremendous work in recent years to provide recreational amenities. Unfortunately it has not received all the encouragement it deserves from successive Governments, and does


not have a sufficiently adequate financial framework to allow it to devote proper resources to this work. In this respect I hope the Nature Conservancy Council will add to recommendations made elsewhere to ensure a reorganisation of the Forestry Commission's financial framework so that proper provision can continue to be made for the recreational amenities envisaged in last year's White Paper.
I realise that the White Paper has proved to be economically unsound because of the tremendous increase in the world price of timber. I hope that the comments in the White Paper relevant to the Forstry Commission's recreational and amenity rôle will not be dismissed in the same way as the false economic forecast deserves to be.
Last year, with a Conservative Member, I had the privilege of visiting the Everglades Nature Reserve in Florida. It was very impressive and both the hon. Gentleman—we were on a CPA delegation—and I agreed that the Everglades arrangement should be copied in this country. The Minister has said we should take the lead in international developments and that there may be areas in which we could give a lead. It is clear from arrangements at Everglades and one or two other national parks we visited in the United States, that an opportunity has been provided there for natural contact in an exciting and interesting way. As an amateur naturalist I would not wish to be so well organised that I walked along artificial gangways and so on, but the vast majority of people who do not know how to find natural objects for themselves need such guidance and arrangements. I hope that the Nature Conservancy Council. in addition to giving a lead where it can, will be able and prepared to emulate the achievements of other countries.
The Government have said that the Nature Conservancy Council will have a degree of independence. The Secretary of State will, I hope, allow the members he appoints to serve on the council to have that independence. It is fitting and proper that he has the right of appointment. Schedule 3 provides for the Minister to approve any appointment of a chief officer which the Nature Conservancy Council might make. I would

like the Minister to reconsider that provision. If delegation is done properly he will appoint members of the Nature Conservancy Council and will then allow them to get on with the job so that they do not have to run back to him before they appoint their chief officer. He may feel that ministerial approval is necessary in the first place but after that, if he has any confidence in his own appointments, he will leave them to get on with the job and demonstrate that independence by removing this particular provision from the Bill.
I believe that the Nature Conservancy has an important rôle to play. It cannot play that rôle properly until it is more vigorous in its expression, more vigorous in its informative capacity and more keen to extend information and advice. I believe that it should be prepared to express its opinion and offer advice, whether or not it is asked for that opinion or advice. The Nature Conservancy should not get involved in moral issues and it should not, for example, join debates about blood sports. On the other hand, it ought not to be afraid of treading on toes.
We have seen in recent years a considerable decline in the otter population. I believe that that decline was so serious and so sharp in England—perhaps not in Scotland—that the Nature Conservancy ought vigorously to have expressed the view that this was a species in very real danger of extinction and it should have been prepared, eager and able to make a real contribution to the debate which took place last year or the year before.
I think it was reluctant to do so because it was timorous of involving itself in a debate on a blood sport. It ought not to take sides on such moral issues, but it should be prepared to inform and advise where circumstances are such that there is a need for informed comment. I hope that it will be prepared to do this in the future and that we will not be in a position where a species will disappear because public bodies with responsibilities have not spoken sufficiently clearly.
We have found in the last few weeks that the Ministry of Agriculture is unable to say clearly how many miles of hedgerow have disappeared in Britain during recent years. I admit that the Ministry of Agriculture is beginning to show


concern about the matter. Some of its officials have been involved in studying the question, an interesting pamphlet has been produced, and advice of an appropriate nature has been offered. But I feel that we do not know enough about this problem. Hedgerows are a vital part of our ecology and without them scores of species, of plants, animals and birds will disappear. The inadequacy of our knowledge is something which the Nature Conservancy Council ought quickly to examine.
Since there are many such problems I hope that the Bill will be passed speedily. I hope that the Nature Conservancy Council will be able to address itself without delay to the many problems which deserve attention and that it will have the encouragement and the financial support necessary if its tasks are to be fulfilled.

12 noon.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The prime need is for finality and expedition in establishing the new NCC to overcome months of acrimony which has not been good for the morale of those engaged in the task of nature conservation.
During a Second Reading debate it is perhaps legitimate for our discussions to range wider than the discussions of controversial matters which arose in another place. I would like to ask one or two questions of the Minister. I must first apologise to him for having missed the opening of his speech and it may be that some of the points I wish to make have been touched upon.
The measure of the task of the new Nature Conservancy Council is not fully given expression in the language of the Bill and in particular the Bill does not seem to encompass and place upon the Nature Conservancy Council the major rôle of active prosecution of a truly national policy for nature conservation.
I have read the Bill with some care and I think that it would be possible for the new Conservancy Council to undertake such a major promotional rôle in terms of Clause 1(1)(a)(ii) that part of the Bill which refers to the function of the Conservancy Council is being:
the provision of advice and dissemination of knowledge about nature conservation".
But that does not really go quite wide enough. It seems to me that we in Com-

mittee ought to consider whether or not to spell out specifically this broad-based function of the promotion of the national policy for nature conservation.
The problem is that in years past the Nature Conservancy has done an excellent job with extremely limited resources in a number of chosen areas and it has had to be highly selective about those areas in which it was prepared to make a stand. I am bound to say that on the evidence we have had from the Government this morning and the kind of resources that they have in mind for the new Nature Conservancy Council, I am extremely doubtful whether the new Council can do anything much more than its predecessor in this respect.
Is it intended that there should be an increase in terms of money resources for nature conservation? The figures the Minister has given this morning are not encouraging. I recognise that the decision to hive off some of the functions to the NERC and the ITE will have some cost benefit for the Nature Conservancy Council. But if the new council is to be in a position to give advice on many of the social and economic planning questions in which one would like to see it involved, I do not believe that it can hope to do this on such a small financial base.
Turning to the controversial question of research, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is true that the financial arrangements which were adumbrated in the White Paper have already largely been implemented? Is it the case that seven-tenths of the research formerly undertaken by the old Nature Conservancy has already been passed over to NERC? We should know whether that is the case.
A question arises with regard to that research which has been hived off to the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Can we expect that in the medium term the ITE will continue to do work which has relevance to the questions which the Nature Conservancy has studied in the past? That is not the work which is being done on contract from the new Council but the rest of the work—if the three-tenths and seven-tenths figures are accurate. Will that have any relevance to the work of the Nature Conservancy Council?
It appears that the financial issue is serious for the Conservancy Council and in some ways the most fundamental, particularly at this time with the enormous inflation of land values. It seems that inflation of land values is likely to bring to a halt the programme of acquisition of land for nature reserves. The council may be increasingly dependent upon voluntary donations and arrangements of that kind and may not be able freely to enter the market. This would be very unfortunate.
It is unfortunate because if the NCC is to provide national advice about nature conservation in relation to planning, economic questions and such questions as the development of sites for North Sea oil, it is bound to draw upon experience it has gained in the nature reserves. It is plainly of great importance that the council should have a wide geographical scatter and that there should not be any restrictions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland had not invited the Nature Conservancy to give its views on the proposed sites for oil-related developments. Of course the Nature Conservancy has given evidence on a number of occasions in planning inquiries and most recently——

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): In justice to his hon. Friend that was not what he said. His hon. Friend complained that the Secretary of State had not consulted the Nature Conservancy in Scotland about whom he might appoint to the Oil Advisory Committee.

Mr. Maclennan: I see, I am sorry. I stand corrected. The point I was trying to make is that the Nature Conservancy has given evidence at a number of inquiries into proposed change of land use, notably at the recent Dunnet Bay inquiry in Caithness.
Some misconceptions may arise about the rôle of the Nature Conservancy in doing this sort of thing, partly about its locus standi before such a tribunal. It is spoken of as an objector to a scheme. As I understand it, though the Conservancy is spoken of technically as an

objector, it is in the position of an expert adviser and it is there to describe the consequences of proposed changes of land use from the conservancy point of view.
If the Nature Conservancy is to carry weight at such inquiries it is of immense importance that its evidence is broadly based and not based simply upon a narrowly confined study of an area under examination. It has to be a comparative study, to some extent, and it is not adequate for the Conservancy simply to say, "There are X, Y and Z factors of interest here". It has to be in a position to make comparative assessments about the relative importance of these questions from a national point of view. This is where I have some anxieties about the Nature Conservancy Council's operations, if they are to be conducted on such a narrow financial base. I do not believe that it has the resources to make these kinds of comparative studies. That is what it should be expected to do.
My final question is about the relationship of the Nature Conservancy Council to the Countryside Commission. My impression has been that the Countryside Commission in Scotland, at least, has shown itself to be singularly insensitive to conservation questions, and, although it has done useful interstitial work in helping to promote certain schemes for opening up the countryside, I am not sure whether it has always seen the possible nature conservancy implications of what it is doing.
For example, the Chairman of the Scottish Countryside Commission, Mrs. Balfour, who is a constituent of mine, has spoken of a large area in Sutherland which she owns—the estate of Scourie—as being nothing but rock and water and, therefore, incapable either of being developed or of providing any sort of employment. On the face of it, that is an extraordinarily insensitive description of one of the most interesting ecological areas in the country, and a neglect of the possible interests of the community in the nature conservation of that area.
I quote that example because it is known to me, and reflects an attitude of mind which one would not expect to see in a person fulfilling such an important public office in Scotland—a "keep out" attitude, because the area is of relatively little interest. Perhaps it is because she


has a personal interest in the area that she does not appreciate the public interest in it.
I welcome the Bill, and hope that it will bring to an end the bickering and squabbling which has occurred about the work of the Nature Conservancy Council. I also wish the staff and the new members of the council well in their endeavours.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall be extremely brief, because I recognise that other members of the Committee may wish to speak. I believe that the kernel of the Bill relates to the research function of the new council. In this connection, I refer the Minister to the evidence given by the Nature Conservancy to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. There is an interesting ecological equation in that the Conservancy suggested that conservation equals research plus assessment plus implementation. If we relate that equation to the Bill, the latter is revealed as inadequate, since it subordinates the research operation to the overall impact. One cannot easily divide this equation and transfer its elements from one side to another. In order to deal properly with conservation in this modern age it is essential that the function of a Council appointed to perform the task of conservation should be that of research.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and others have sought to probe the Minister in this context. Again I relate my views to the eviddence given to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 21st December 1971, paragraph 3.2(i) of which states, under the heading "The Broad Layout".
The Conservancy's functional organisation has evolved to meet its varied responsibilities and the requirements of its conceptual basis as a research, management and advisory body.
Research is the essence of its operations and we cannot in line with the desired legalistic approach subordinate this concept in a Bill of this magnitude and importance.
I am interested—and I may probe the Minister about this in Committee—in the exact relationship between the new Council and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. I am intrigued by the title. Is it possible to have any ecology other than terrestrial? Is the Minister implying that

the Institute of Oceanology will have other functions, or will there be overlapping between the ecology of the sea, rivers or lakes and that of the land? The relationship in the Bill is not clear, and I hope that the Minister will at some stage endeavour to clarify the situation.
As some of my hon. Friends have indicated, we in Scotland are concerned about the impact on the environment which is likely to be made by North Sea Oil. I hope that the Scottish Minister present this morning—although I realise that the Parliamentary niceties may prevent him from speaking on the Bill—will take note of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the Opposition's desire to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council is not only consulted but will form part of any organisation of a Scottish nature to assess sites, either for the development of oil or for the production of rigs or production platforms. Twenty-eight sites have been designated in Scotland for possible development, and the Nature Conservancy Council should be consulted before the Secretary of State or anyone else allows them to be developed.
As persuasive evidence of this, I cite Clause 9(1) of the Maplin Development Bill, which states that
it shall be the duty of the Maplin Development Authority, before beginning any work of reclamation authorised by this Act, to consult with the Nature Conservancy about the likely effect of the work on any flora or fauna.
Subsection (2), which I shall not quote at length, empowers the Maplin Development Authority to pay money to the Nature Conservancy to assist in this purpose.
A similar obligation is involved here. For that reason, it is important that the Nature Conservancy Council should be part of any body examining sites in Scotland. If we are to impinge on the totality of the Scottish environment in terms of North Sea Oil we need to ensure that we do not irreparably damage the environment.

Mr. Younger: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I very much take the point he has made. It is my right hon. Friend's intention that the Nature Conservancy Council should be consulted on any matters associated with planning


applications in which its advice might be helpful.

Mr. Douglas: I welcome that assurance. Nevertheless, in view of the comments that have been made I hope that I may press the Minister a little further by asking that the new Nature Conservancy Council should have at least one direct member on the new organisation created to advise on Scottish oil. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman will not be able to give me a reply this morning.
Thus I give the Bill a guarded welcome. For my part I shall seek by amendments to strengthen it, with particular reference to its initiation and operation of research. I trust that some of the worry and concern of individual members of the Conservancy will be removed by its speedy passage through the House.

12.22 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friends have welcomed the Bill with guarded reservations. While they have said that in principle they are in favour of it, one after another they have shown why the Bill does not go far enough. I will add one more dimension.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has commented on the financial allocation, which is very small. I have known the Greater London Council to allocate sums greater than £1·7 million almost on the nod. If that is all that the Government can provide for a body of such significance in an age concerned with such vital topics, and after creating the Department of the Environment, something is wrong.
That is not all. Honourable Friends have mentioned that the issue has not been free from acrimony and argument. The whole procedure reminds me of the parallel situation in the Water Bill debates where a complex new structure was imposed upon existing machinery, and where the contractor-customer relationship—the Government's view of how it should work—has been written in. There are a large number of impressive names, including the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, which I fear will not live up to its impressive title. I do not see how it can within the structure that has been outlined.
The greatest drawback of the Bill is that it does not take the national problem by the scruff of the neck. I put a Question to the Department of the Environment recently, following an Answer from the Prime Minister, asking for which bodies, other than those inside the Department, is the Secretary of State responsible. I have not yet had a reply. The Department of the Environment does not quite know where it is on this matter. Nothing the Minister has said this morning gives me any cause to think that the Government realise the size and complexity of the problem with which the Nature Conservancy Council should be concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) paid lip service to a total approach. I do not think he realises that we are up against the problem of the pressure of techniques on the environment—techniques not only of science, but of finance. It is these that are ever-pressing upon the ecological environment and we therefore get the effects mentioned by hon. Members today.
We must make sure what those effects are and, where they become serious, modify the technical and financial mechanisms that are undermining the ecological coherence on which society rests. It is not a question now of nature reserves, but a question of the total conservation of our ecological resources. There is nothing in Clause 1 which would place a duty on the Nature Conservancy Council to look at that total problem.
But if the council is not to look at it, who is? Who is qualified to do so? I do not see any body inside the Government, or outside, with power and finances to look at this problem. It arises in particular in relation to husbandry of the soil. Everyone realises that with new agricultural techniques, and the new agricultural economy facing the country as a result of our entry into the Common Market, there is a limit to the amount by which we can press yields up. That limit may already have been reached. Who is to judge? I do not know.
There was a recent report from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Research Council about soils. It did not go into the problem in sufficient depth and detail. I cannot see that with the limited amount of money the Nature


Conservancy Council will have that it will be able to finance research of that kind. It may be that he who pays the piper—in this case the Minister—will not regard that as a suitable area for research, even if the council thought it was. Behind the scenes there may well be greater controls on the theoretical freedom of the council than has hitherto existed.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) put his finger on the point when he said that land values had risen so much that the commercial cost, or the theoretical cost, of retaining anything of our natural ecology goes up and up. That is an example of the total pressure I mentioned earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley mentioned the Everglades National Park and the experience in the United States. Its historical experience is one where natural resources have been plundered. There have been some extreme and unfortunate experiences. I do not think that our results in plundering the natural environment may be so spectacular, but they may be as fundamentally important to this island's ecological resources.
I hope, during the course of the Committee stage, that we shall probe further what the Government intend to do. I do not believe that the money available, and the attitude displayed by the right hon. Gentleman show that the Government know what they are up against and what the nation requires of this important subject.

12.27 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: By leave of the Committee, there are one or two matters I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the debate.
First, there has clearly been expressed, especially by the Opposition, a concern that the Government mean to implement the research function that another place gave to the Nature Conservancy Council. My hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) have made it clear to the Government that we should like the Bill to spell out that the Nature Conservancy Council shall exercise its own discretion and opinion as to what research it will do and what research it will give to the Institute of

Terrestrial Ecology or the National Environment Research Council. When we reach this point in Committee, the Bill should be amended to make clear what the Committee intend, and what the Government, in pursuance of their amendment in another place and in response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, have said they would give power to the council to do.
There has been some discussion of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. I confess that I do not like the name. It is an ambiguous name. When one uses the word "terrestrial" is it, as one hon. Gentleman said, the connotation that this is terrestrial and not astronomic? That is one connotation of the word "terrestrial", relating to the earth as a sphere. Another connotation of "terrestrial" would be in conjunction with marine or oceanographic. Presumably, that is what the Government mean by "terrestrial ecology", that this is concerned with land as distinct from water. The word "terrestrial" may mean "relating to soil". Will this body be construed as dealing only with the soil and what pertains to the soil and not necessarily animals, birds, and so on, that live on land?
It is not a good name. A much more simple and straightforward name would be more attractive for the important work that this body will carry out. It is a forbidding name. It is a name that most members of the public will not understand and they will certainly be confused by it.
The other topic raised by the Opposition, especially by my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and East Stirlingshire, concerned the independence of the council and ministerial powers. I agree with my hon. Friends that it is being a bit grandmotherly of the House to say that we shall set up this Nature Conservancy Council, the members of which are appointed by the Secretary of State, but that one must come back to the Secretary of State for him to approve whom one chooses as one's chief officer. It has to be seen to be an independent body, especially with regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire said about Scottish oil. It is no use the Nature Conservancy Council giving advice about Scottish oil if it is felt by the public, even


though it is not true, that the council is only a puppet of the Department of the Environment or of the Scottish Office concerned basically not with the issues of the environment but with placating the Minister.
We have had something similar to this with Maplin. It was felt that certain reports concerning Maplin were a little too tinged to the Government's point of view to be as independent as we should have liked. These reports were from the Civil Aviation Authority and so on, and one report was a little different from another. Certainly in an independent function like nature conservancy there should be no trace of that, so let us not be too grandmotherly about what staff the Nature Conservancy Council appoints.
Finally, and, as always, most important, there is the question of money. As my hon. Friends have said, for a body which has to maintain so many nature reserves, which has responsibility for research, which will be acquiring more nature reserves as a result of proposals likely to emerge from the review, which will be providing advice and disseminating information to schools—that in itself could cost nearly El million a year—and which in addition is to provide grants to county councils, and others, £1·74 million a year—about the cost of providing one mile of motorway—is insufficient to preserve the fauna, flora and natural heritage of the British Isles.
Having set up this body, we and the Government must look at the financial implications and realise that a considerably greater amount must be spent if it is satisfactorily to carry out the functions given it in the Bill, to the benefit of the British people.

Mr. Page: With the leave of the Committee, I shall try to answer some of the questions put during this interesting debate. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members for the contribution they have made in their constructive criticism. We shall take all these matters into account both before and after the Committee stage of the Bill. I apologise to the Committee for depriving it of the words of wisdom of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland but he has listened to the speeches, particularly those of Scottish Members. and will take many of the

points into account, some of which I may be able to answer as I go along.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) ended by asking certain specific questions, but I think that I shall have dealt with those if I work through from the beginning of the debate. The hon. Gentleman asked about directions which might be given by the Secretary of State to the Nature Conservancy Council. The reference to directions in Clause 1(5) relates only to the functions under "subsection 1(a) above", that is sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause 1(1)(a). There is no intention of giving detailed directions. The directions in Clause 1(5) are to be "of a general character" and only in connection with the general functions of the Council.
The hon. Member asked also about the number of nature reserves established and run by local authorities. The figure is over 30—between 30 and 40—but there are some 350 nature reserves run by voluntary organisations. One of the main objects of the Nature Conservancy Council will be particularly to encourage voluntary organisations, as well as the local authorities, and to give them as much advice and help as is possible.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman's ideas about the sides of railway lines and the verges of motorways were most valuable. We have made a lot of progress with the motorway verges, which receive special study and the planting and encouragement of the flora and fauna there.
Next, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the dissemination of knowledge to schools. In my own constituency coastal protection work is under consideration, to enable development to take place on what is now marshland, and in this connection I received one of the most interesting letters I have ever had from a constituent. It ran to 15 or 20 pages. and described exactly the flora and fauna within the area which might be destroyed by the development. The writing was clearly that of a schoolgirl, and her knowledge of the area was astonishing. If the Nature Conservancy Council could assist in the dissemination of that sort of knowledge to schools, I am sure that it would be of great benefit to the whole country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) opposed the


idea of the council coming under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. It will not lose its independence by being brought within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment any more than the Countryside Commission does. Indeed, the Conservancy has often in the past made its case at various inquiries. It will do so in future. I believe that once these organisations are within a Department that has responsibility for the environment, there will be far less possibility of issues arising than if the Nature Conservancy Council remained in a different Government Department.
Under the Bill, the Nature Conservancy Council becomes the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment. He will not fight himself. As far as possible, he will accommodate the views and pleadings of the council, as happens with the Countryside Commission now. I believe that the council will therefore possess greater power to its elbow in its new home within the Department of the Environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham raised the subject of naturalists trusts and so on. We are keen to encourage the voluntary organisations in this sphere. My hon. Friend, like others, commented on the name "Institute of Terrestrial Ecology". This is not the Government's choice of a name. The Natural Environment Research Council chose this name itself, for the purpose of describing the knitting together of the functions now undertaken by the research branch of the Nature Conservancy Committee. The Natural Environment Research Council has a number of other institutes—the National Institute of Oceanography, the Institute of Coastal Oceanography and Tides, the Institute for Marine Environmental Research, the Institute of Marine Biochemistry, the Institute of Hydrology, the Institute of Tree Biology, and so on. The choice of name lay with the NERC. As a layman Minister. I would not try to suggest what title the NERC should choose for any of its branches.
Under this title are collected together the research functions which the NERC will retain after the Nature Conservancy Council has been set up. If the Committee agrees, I shall be glad to circulate an interesting letter written by Professor Stewart describing the setting up of this

side of the institute, and the relationship between the institute and the Nature Conservancy Council in the future. I shall not read it now because it is a long letter, but it expresses the matter well.

Mr. Douglas: May I refer the Minister, in view of the title referred to, to the evidence given by Dr. Poore to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on Land Resource Use in Scotland, where—this is page 74 of the evidence—he defines the word "ecology" in the scientific way? I do not believe that the terms can be mixed up. It is either the Institute of Ecology or it is nothing.

Mr. Page: I duck that by saying that it is a Committee point. It is perhaps a little outside the present argument. However, I believe that it would be helpful if the Committee had a copy of Professor Stewart's letter. I shall, therefore, circulate it.

Mr. Lawson: I am happy that the Committee should have a copy of the letter mentioned by the Minister. I have a copy, and it was this document which so alarmed me that I decided to take an interest in the subject. It seemed to me that this "terrestrial" body was swallowing up the Nature Conservancy Council in everything except the running of parks and activities of that nature.

Mr. Page: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. I explained in my opening speech the sort of scientific work which would still be in the hands of the Nature Conservancy Council.
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for the advice he has given to the Department and the discussions we have had with him outside the Committee, which have influenced our minds in developing our proposals for the new Nature Conservancy Council. I am indebted also to the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for the Questions put down to the Secretary of State. If I may, having regard to the fact that HANSARD has not been printed, I shall circulate those Questions and Answers to the Committee rather than read them out now. I am sure that they have relevance to what we shall wish to discuss in Committee.
The particular issue raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell was the


division of research between the two bodies, and whether the Nature Conservancy Council would have the right to make its own decisions about what research it would be appropriate for it to undertake. I hesitated over this because here we have two bodies, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Natural Environment Research Council, and what is given to one would be taken away from the other. I do not mean to set up a sort of Joe Bugner-Joe Frazier fight, with the Secretary of State as referee, but someone must act as referee, because the more one gives research to one side, the more one is necessarily taking away from the other.
If there is any issue over the matter—I do not believe that there will be—as between the NERC and the Nature Conservancy Council, we must leave someone to act as referee and not say that one party may decide exactly what it can take to itself. That is why I hesitated. I am sure that the matter will be debated again in Committee.
The hon. Member for Motherwell was right in saying that the influence of the Nature Conservancy Council should pervade all planning issues relative to the countryside. It should be consulted on development plans, such as structure plans. He asked specifically about the research work it should do: Would anything in the Bill prevent implementation of any of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on Land Resource Use in Scotland? The Secretary of State for Scotland is considering very thoroughly the recommendations of the Select Committee and will be giving the Government's reactions to them as soon as possible.
The provisions in the Bill for setting up the Nature Conservancy Council would not prevent the Council being able to undertake any of the tasks suggested by the Select Committee as appropriate for it to undertake. Where it is already involved in a programme of research, this will continue. New research work also may be undertaken. In all these cases it will be a matter of deciding—I hope on a friendly basis between the two councils—whether the subject is to be one of management research or one which requires more expertise than the council

can undertake. For example, in an area such as North Sea oil, if the Nature Conservancy Council was asked what effect it would have on the flora of etc area. I imagine that the council would at once consider whether it was just a matter of collection of information, or a matter requiring research to be commissioned from the Natural Environment Research Council.
That answers the question of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop): how does the public know where to go for information? When there is a problem, I imagine that if it is a conservancy problem an inquiry will be made to the Nature Conservancy Council. If the council feels it needs to commission research on the subject, it will do so from the Natural Environment Research Council. It would not be right at this stage to draw a firm line between the various types of information and research required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked about the SSSIs—the sites of specific scientific interest—under Section 15 of the Countryside Act. I was astonished to learn that as many as 3,000 such sites exist. He has asked that we treat them with more "life and enthusiasm". The Nature Conservancy Council has to notify local planning authorities of sites of special scientific interest in areas which are not nature reserve areas. The significance of this is that local planning authorities have to consult the council before granting any planning permission for development in such areas.
The extent to which the Nature Conservancy Council will use Section 15 of the Countryside Act for this purpose to enter into agreements with owners of land in such areas will be a matter for the council to consider in preparing its future programme of sorting out priorities within the available resources.
In future, the proposed council will have new powers under Clause 3 to make grams to other persons towards the cost of nature conservation projects. The ownership of land does not change under the SSSI scheme. The co-operation of owners, therefore, is needed to safeguard nature conservation interests in those areas. We need to ensure that the


interests of owners and of nature conservation are properly in balance.
The hon. Member for South Shields said that there must be a good relationship between the long-term scientists and those working on the spot. I commend to him the letter from Professor Stewart, in which there is a lot of sound sense. I think that it describes what the hon. Gentleman called for in terms of a "sane, rational, human relationship" between these two bodies.
I like the idea of the declaratory clause in the Countryside Act, and perhaps we might consider in Committee whether such a clause might be included in this Bill.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) spoke about resources, and said that I had given a somewhat grudging welcome to the amendment from another place. It was not at all grudging. I was pleased to welcome it. It is a great improvement to the Bill, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the other place for its constructive work.
The £1,740,000 is the DOE's estimate for 1973–74 which we inherited from the Department of Education and Science. I quoted these figures not necessarily as a forecast for the future but to show the extent of the work being carried out at present, expressed in money terms.
We shall need to consider future levels of expenditure in the light of the proposals of the new council for its work and for the priorities in that work. I shall not, therefore, make any statements or promises about the level of resources at this stage. Let us have a look at the new council's programme and see what is proposed.
The money for the conservation side of nature conservancy—the £1,740,000—has been transferred from the Department of Education and Science to the Department of the Environment from 1st April last in accordance with the White Paper, and it incorporates the £380,000 for the commissioning of research from the Natural Environment Research Council.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister said, "Let us have a look at the council's programme". The council will be composed of very sensible people, and they will

have to have regard to the resources available. Therefore, they will have to tailor the programme which we look forward to seeing in order to take account of the resources currently available. We should have an expression of possible generosity to guide the council so that its programme may be as ambitious as some of us would like it to be.

Mr. Page: This is the chicken-and-egg situation which arises in any form of government. One must consider the resources available, what one wants to do, and tailor one to the other. I cannot forecast what the national resources situation may be when we come to look at the Nature Conservancy Council's programme. I do not stand here as a Treasury Minister, and, indeed, if I did, my lips would, I suppose, be sealed. Of course, there must be a balance—what is the programme and what can be spent on it; what are the resources and therefore what is the programme? I do not know exactly how it is resolved, but when the Nature Conservancy Council becomes part of the Department, the problem will be minimised.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) put a number of points, and the one which I wish particularly to answer concerned the active prosecution by the Nature Conservancy Council of a national policy. It is ultimately the Secretary of State's job to form the policy. The Council will be encouraged to be as independent as it wishes in the expression of its views and in the presentation of facts and advice on those facts. But the ultimate duty of forming a national policy lies with the
Secretary of State. I should like to answer the rest of the questions put by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and, in so far as I have not managed to do so now, I shall write to him.
This is as far as I can take the matter at this stage. I am sure the Committee will wish not to stretch the Second Reading over a second sitting, because we have had a valuable debate today. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will look carefully at the criticisms made today and see to what extent we can meet them.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that

The Following Members Attended The Committe


Davies, Mr. Ifor (Chairman)
Hawkins, Mr.


Allason, Mr.
Lawson, Mr.


Benyon, Mr.
Maclennan, Mr.


Blenkinsop, Mr.
Oakes, Mr.


Bray, Mr.
Owen, Mr. Idris


Douglas, Mr.
Page, Mr. Graham


Dunn, Mr.
Parker, Mr. John


Farr, Mr.
Spearing, Mr.


Hamilton, Mr. Michael
Spence, Mr.


Hardy, Mr.
Younger, Mr.

the Nature Conservancy Council Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at three minutes to One o'clock.